# About the Texas massacre and easy access to guns.



## Nikokaro (May 25, 2022)

In my country we remain amazed how, despite yet another school massacre in the United States, the general opinion and the people do not put any serious and concrete pressure on the policy to change the gun law. It seems unbelievable to us. Is it possible that selfishness, fear of the other, and of losing one's possessions is more important than public safety and the protection of the weak and minorities? Is it possible that they still do not understand the danger of giving easy access to weapons to the first frustrated, deranged, paranoid, insane person who, having already decided to throw away his own life, does so by dragging as many innocents as possible into the abyss with him? Is this the celebrated American freedom of which they are so proud? 

I would like to point out to them that in addition to the freedom "to" (to accumulate possessions, to be ambitious, to impose oneself, to have prestige, to enjoy...) there is also a more delicate, more inner and far more important freedom "from" (from the past, from prejudices, from selfishness and closure, from greed and anger, etc. ) and the latter can be maintained only by not spreading fear of the neighbor, the different, the foreigner and the exaltation of self-defense, but by developing the system of social protection, inclusion and welcome, and by avoiding ghettoizing, excluding, mocking, and thus bringing to exasperation and despair the different, the strange, the fragile, the mentally ill, etc. 

Paradoxically, what is a widespread "fear of crime" (to be exorcised with easy access to weapons) has produced yet another "crime of fear"; because enacted by a person conditioned and driven by fear, of mockery, of others, of the past that haunts him, of the future that paralyzes him...
Have I made myself clear?
What do you guys think about this matter?
And forgive my bad english.


----------



## CPG_ (May 25, 2022)

i hate how every so often this song from 2002 becomes relevant again


----------



## pokota (May 25, 2022)

It's less that we reject gun control out of hand and more the government is actually _not allowed_ to restrict civilian access to small arms without first getting the separate states to agree to it.  Larger arms are already restricted on the grounds that they're not intended for civilian use in the first place (and because of their scale they're supposed to leave a more clear paper trail), but that's outside the scope of this post.

With that said, part of the reason that the gun control debate is as much of a hot button issue in the States as it is is because we _already _have gun control laws on the books that aren't being enforced that would hypothetically solve the issues, but people keep insisting on drafting new laws for [controversial issue of the day] rather than enforcing what's already on the books.


----------



## Nothereed (May 25, 2022)

Guns aren't the problem here, the problem is mental health. Which well, if your working around the clock, with no required vacations. A healthcare system that requires to be paid for. Then your society is not going to handle wielding guns well at all. Since rationally ends up going out the window.


----------



## Noctosphere (May 25, 2022)

Logic of republicans :
There are too many guns in our country, that makes us vulnerable
How will we deal with that?
We will give more guns to peoples


----------



## MariArch (May 26, 2022)

You can't have my guns feddys. fuck off



Noctosphere said:


> Logic of republicans :
> There are too many guns in our country, that makes us vulnerable
> How will we deal with that?
> We will give more guns to peoples


Interesting that from the 90s till current day, the amount of gun owners has increased drastically, yet the crime has decreased drastically, eh? It's almost like the vast vast vast majority of gun owners hold them for self defense and are not murdering psychopaths


----------



## pokota (May 26, 2022)

In theory having that many gun owners around should discourage mass shootings (not necessarily like this one; one of the federal restrictions on arms that passed constitutional muster is that you're not allowed to bring guns onto the grounds of a public school - the texas shooting is the quintessential case of 'criminals gonna crime'); in practice the argument falls apart due essentially to the Tragedy of the Commons - _I_ don't want to be the one to shoot at the mad gunman guy because _somebody else_ is going to too and I don't want to create a crossfire that costs more lives than just one retaliator would save.


----------



## JuanBaNaNa (May 26, 2022)

Haha, enjoy your XP Nikokaro.

What do you expect that will happen in a place where is easier to get drugs and guns than healthcare?

BTW, do you remember couple weeks ago a white man shoot people in a mall?
Police didn't neutralized the guy like they did with this school shooter.
Wonder why?

No, actually: wOnDeR wHy?

I couldn't care less to be honest. Trump should've built that wall to keep those teens out of my country.

Oh wait! Texas was part of my country. Thanks to Santa Ana, for his efforts of selling half of Mexico's territory no mexicans where  harmed in that school shooting. 

Lel.


----------



## MariArch (May 26, 2022)

pokota said:


> In theory having that many gun owners around should discourage mass shootings (not necessarily like this one; one of the federal restrictions on arms that passed constitutional muster is that you're not allowed to bring guns onto the grounds of a public school - the texas shooting is the quintessential case of 'criminals gonna crime'); in practice the argument falls apart due essentially to the Tragedy of the Commons - _I_ don't want to be the one to shoot at the mad gunman guy because _somebody else_ is going to too and I don't want to create a crossfire that costs more lives than just one retaliator would save.


(just to note, the person that shot the shooter was a random passerby border agent that happened to be in the area, but I digress)

The solution to this is a vast overhaul of security in schools. It should piss people off that these politicians have the gall to have giant security clientele for their rat asses and can ship billions of our dollars overseas to the Ukraine, but they can't spend any money to protect our children in schools.

these anti 2a politicians on Twitter that are standing on the graves of children to try to get stupid shit that wouldn't even help to pass like universal background checks or red flag laws are playing a cynical game. If they were serious about wanting to "do anything!", they would've tried to pass these types of security overhauls that could pass by a super majority in the house and senate

If people don't see how the media and politicians are using these moments to try to score brownie points, they're blind.



JuanBaNaNa said:


> Haha, enjoy your XP Nikokaro.
> 
> What do you expect that will happen in a place where is easier to get drugs and guns than healthcare?
> 
> ...


This is the dumbest take ever. The buffalo shooter was surrounded by cops and gave up after slaughtering innocents, if you don't think everyone doesn't despise that scum then you are insane. If there was a death penalty in New York, he would rightfully be on death row, but there isn't.

This guy was shot because a bystander came in with his gun to neutralize him before the cops arrived. It had absolutely nothing to do with him being hispanic you race baiter.


----------



## Nothereed (May 26, 2022)

BanEvasion said:


> Weak ass, pathetic, bullshit, argument. The kid that did this shit didn't seek mental health help before shooting his grandmother in the face, then massacring 19 children. He posted about it on Facebook then went and did it. "MORE MENTAL HEALTH HELP!!!" Really? Are you dense in the fucking head?


Okay, let me ask a question then.
How many Americans cannot afford health care at all?
at the beginning of the pandemic, almost 10% of the population cannot afford care. But that's those that already are paying for healthcare, not the actual cost of say going to a therapist. Just by putting it behind a price wall, anyone will second guess if they need it.
Second we have the fact we have a growing fascist party in the United States, that would be MAGA/Trump. I do not use that term lightly. Removing guns won't fix the problem. They'll get access to it and still shoot. The massacre that happened was racially motivated and in large part aligned with said fascist party. citing the "great replacement" theory. Which painfully, I know exactly who to blame for. Which would be Tucker Carlson, who has non stop brought up that conspiracy theory. He didn't create it, but he definitely gave it a unnecessary microphone.

Regulating guns is also not a good idea at the moment. With the United States gerrmandering problem worse than every before, resulting in a minority representing the majority. If the fascist party where to take power, they would use those same levers made against us. Had we not been in much more extreme climate, it would of worked out fine.


----------



## MariArch (May 26, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> Regulating guns is also not a good idea at the moment. With the United States gerrmandering problem worse than every before, resulting in a minority representing the majority. If the fascist party where to take power, they would use those same levers made against us. Had we not been in much more extreme climate, it would of worked out fine.


Fascist party lmao.

People like you are the problem. Turns out nearly half the country voted for Trump in 2020 and the democrats are going to get ripped in the midterms. Are all the people that vote for them fascists? If you genuinely think that, I don't know why I'm obligated to share a country with people like you. And I reckon a lot of people have that exact same sentiment


----------



## Nothereed (May 26, 2022)

BanEvasion said:


> We're talking about the TX massacre here, not health care.


healthcare goes hand in hand with this. Guns don't kill people. People do.
If your not of sound mind, your going to make unsound decisions. Unsound decisions can be prevented of people in this country had better access to mental help facilities before it even reaches this point.



MariArch said:


> Fascist party lmao.
> 
> People like you are the problem. Turns out nearly half the country voted for Trump in 2020 and the democrats are going to get ripped in the midterms. Are all the people that vote for them fascists? If you genuinely think that, I don't know why I'm obligated to share a country with people like you. And I reckon a lot of people have that exact same sentiment


Reminder that Rudy guilliany on jan 6 said trial by combat. Reminder that on January 6th that the people there we're chanting "kill mike pence" reminder that multiple neo nazi groups were there, armed. Reminder that there was a pipebomb left.

Let's not forget Trump demanding votes out of the governor in Georgia, to get him 1 more vote to win for the election, claiming that he needed to find it. Calming victory first and then demanding proof.

This list can go on. No republican president has one the popular vote within 20 years. But have won the electoral collage. at least three times since then.


----------



## MariArch (May 26, 2022)

BanEvasion said:


> We're talking about the TX massacre here, not health care. The TX massacre was also not racially motivated. Tucker Carlson should be publicly executed along with Alex Jones and several others I could name.


equating Tucker Carlson with Alex Jones is purely asinine and suggesting that someone deserves the death penalty for speech is just authoritarian. You need to take your meds


----------



## Nothereed (May 26, 2022)

MariArch said:


> Are all the people that vote for them fascists?


Not all of them are facists, however many are increasingly proto-fascists which eventually leads into facism, with about a large bulk of it being effectively facists at this point.



MariArch said:


> equating Tucker Carlson with Alex Jones is purely asinine and suggesting that someone deserves the death penalty for speech is just authoritarian. You need to take your meds


They both push conspiracy theories, their speech is actively hurting others and pushing others to kill. They are in the same line.

Their speech and rhetoric is resulting in people acting on that, and those actions... well, it's getting people killed.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 26, 2022)

the problem is mental health, not guns.

gun control just leaves us law abiding citizens without self defense, since criminals don't follow the law and will keep their guns.


----------



## Nothereed (May 26, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> the problem is mental health, not guns.
> 
> gun control just leaves us law abiding citizens without self defense, since criminals don't follow the law and will keep their guns.


I usually wouldn't side with you, however in this particular case I do agree. I wouldn't just extend it to criminals.
"Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary" --Marx.


----------



## MariArch (May 26, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> Reminder that Rudy guilliany on jan 6 said trial by combat. Reminder that on January 6th that the people there we're chanting "kill mike pence" reminder that multiple neo nazi groups were there, armed. Reminder that there was a pipebomb left.
> 
> Let's not forget Trump demanding votes out of the governor in Georgia, to get him 1 more vote to win for the election, claiming that he needed to find it. Calming victory first and then demanding proof.
> 
> This list can go on. No republican president has one the popular vote within 20 years. But have won the electoral collage. at least three times since then.


Reminder that Giuliani said this was hyperbolic
Reminder that 500/74,000,000+ people went to the capital that day... and even those 500 are a fraction of the people that were there that day (The vast majority didn't enter the capital). Equating 500 or so morons to millions of people is just pure stupidity.
And this thing about trump talking to the governor to "find votes", suggesting he wanted him to make up votes is just such a non story. Tapes released afterwards obviously make it clear that he was wanting a recount because he was confident the margin would be close (which it wasn't), not that he wanted him to rig it (Which the governor has no power to do, by the way).

You have no idea why people voted for Trump. It's not because a lot of people don't know he's a moron, it's more of a fuck you to all these political elitists. And the media trying to run hit piece after hit piece on him for 4 years (and onwards) is obvious evidence of this elitism.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 26, 2022)

BanEvasion said:


> The TX massacre was also not racially motivated. Tucker Carlson should be publicly executed along with Alex Jones and several others I could name.


So you want people killed for opinions? Jesus, how far will these leftists go?

But in all seriousness, this is a clear sign of mental illness that you want people dead just for having opinions, and you should probably go to a therapist or something.


----------



## MariArch (May 26, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> They both push conspiracy theories, their speech is actively hurting others and pushing others to kill. They are in the same line.
> 
> Their speech and rhetoric is resulting in people acting on that, and those actions... well, it's getting people killed.


Sir. If you think Tucker Carlson lead to the Buffalo shooting, you'll have to explain to me why the shooter said in his manifesto that he was a "left wing authoritarian" and specifically said he hates Fox News. 

You'll also have to tell me when Tucker Carlson mentioned this theory the shooter wrote about, which describes "Jews trying to replace the white man with minorities."

 Spoiler alert: You'll never find Tucker Carlson Pushing this stupid stuff. He talks about illegal immigration leading to demographic changes and a lack of cultural hegemony which he and the vast majority of americans consider an issue. 

You've been fooled. Left wing media literally keep trying to throw shit on the wall and see what sticks so they can maybe get rid of Carlson because they know people listen to him



KennyAtom said:


> So you want people killed for opinions? Jesus, how far will these leftists go?
> 
> But in all seriousness, this is a clear sign of mental illness that you want people dead just for having opinions, and you should probably go to a therapist or something.


It's not worth even arguing about. Let's just say.. purely hypothetically, that Tucker Carlson was indeed a 'neo-nazi'.. Left wing people, even 40 years ago, wouldn't have called for them to be executed. In fact, orginizations like the ACLU famously defended Nazi's rights _to_ march in Skokie, no matter how heinous of scummy said people are.

Leftists don't abide by principles of free speech like old school liberals do. They are authoritarians that label any speech they dislike as apparent Fascism or authoritarianism. This philosophy is incompatible with the constitutional right to free speech.


----------



## Nothereed (May 26, 2022)

MariArch said:


> Reminder that Giuliani said this was hyperbolic


You cannot change that in post. When your right there, and your in front of a crowd, and you say that. People will go by what you said then, not what you said after. When you have a group of angry people who were told that their election was stolen, and you say that? What do you think they are going to do? hyperbole or not that is an extreme failing as public speaker in that moment if it was supposed to be hyperbole.


MariArch said:


> You have no idea why people voted for Trump. It's not because a lot of people don't know he's a moron, it's more of a fuck you to all these political elitists. And the media trying to run hit piece after hit piece on him for 4 years (and onwards) is obvious evidence of this elitism.


He is an elitist, and a con. If it was true that people wanted to choose him because he claimed himself to be "I'm not a established politician" that only gets you so far once you are the politician.
Further more, let's talk the media for a moment.
If your a individual with values that are unacceptable, you need to control the flow of information for people to start accepting your views.
Let's identify what runs a business, and therefore, a news outlet for a moment. Obviously it's no longer the weather or trying to be as least biased as possible, your looking for people to keep watching and engaging.
The problem is that there's a strong correlation that more educated people are more left leaning. Which means if a news outlet tries to dump a pile of shit, to that audience, it doesn't fly, due to being able to realize it is a pile of shit.
Fascist need information control, they need people to be less educated, otherwise, people would start questioning orders. It requires yes men. So this is where it all plays back into companies and news outlets.
News outlets if they are looking to target the republican individuals, can get away with far more. Conservatism itself is primarily stoked in tradition, traditions that may or may not be that great (cough cough, racism sexism) which means that for a fascist, who may want to gain power, have an easier time manipulating a populous that has worse education, not more. Or better yet, direct them where to get the information from. Turn them away from all news sources but the ones they approve of.
That doesn't mean the likes of NBC are neutral, far from it. Instead, they can only hide their bias under a few things. One of them being stories that profit companies, and are anti worker/anti union.


KennyAtom said:


> Jesus, how far will these leftists go?


Leftists (actual ones, not democrats) leave others alone until a group of intolerable people, start slaughtering or threatening others. We're tolerant of all, except the intolerant. Because if we try to be tolerant of a group that is intolerant, we get another holocust. Which is what happened. There was no leftists anymore in germany, since Hitler killed them all. And the left over liberal faction (liberal being anywhere from just barely to right  to full right.)) was unable to argue or fight off that. Resulting in that happening.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 26, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> Leftists (actual ones, not democrats) leave others alone until a group of intolerable people, start slaughtering or threatening others. We're tolerant of all, except the intolerant. Because if we try to be tolerant of a group that is intolerant, we get another holocust. Which is what happened. There was no leftists anymore in germany, since Hitler killed them all. And the left over liberal faction (liberal being anywhere from just barely to right  to full right. Not liberal like democrat liberal) was unable to argue or fight off that. Resulting in that happening.


makes sense, but calling for the death penalty for people who just happen to accidentally make mentally ill people go and shoot everyone seems a little far, especially since they aren't doing it directly.


----------



## Nothereed (May 26, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> makes sense, but calling for the death penalty for people who just happen to accidentally make mentally ill people go and shoot everyone seems a little far, especially since they aren't doing it directly.


It doesn't just happen. Tucker hasn't talked this once. He's been talking about it since 2014. that's 8 years. I don't take that lightly though, taking a life or saying it should be removed is... honestly a terrifying thing. You really have to ask yourself if that's the correct decision, for weeks on end. I would of said that it's not a good choice of action if you asked me in 2018. however, seeing it still repeated, seeing the lives that are being lost. It's really difficult for me to keep that position.
 However I believe that people should at least vote on such a decision, one person should not speak for the all, it doesn't feel right.


----------



## MariArch (May 26, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> It doesn't just happen. Tucker hasn't talked this once. He's been talking about it since 2014. that's 8 years. I don't take that lightly though, taking a life or saying it should be removed is... honestly a terrifying thing. You really have to ask yourself if that's the correct decision, for weeks on end. I would of said that it's not a good choice of action if you asked me in 2018. however, seeing it still repeated, seeing the lives that are being lost. However I believe that people should at least vote on such a decision, one person should not speak for the all, it doesn't feel right.


Cite from the manifesto where the shooter says he watched Tucker Carlson and that he got conspiracy theories about Jews trying to replaces whites from his show.. You won't find it. It's pretty obvious that this shooter was fucked in the head and spent way too much time on /pol/. The media trying to grasp at straws to try to link the buffalo shooting to Carlson is just another attempt to shutdown anyone they don't like


----------



## KennyAtom (May 26, 2022)

MariArch said:


> This isn't even the case. Again, if you read the manifesto, the shooter explicitly says that he
> 
> Again. Cite from the manifesto where the shooter says he watched Tucker Carlson and that he got conspiracy theories about Jews trying to replaces whites from his show.. You won't find it. It's pretty obvious that this shooter was fucked in the head and spent way too much time on /pol/. The media trying to grasp at straws to try to link the buffalo shooting to Carlson is just another attempt to shutdown anyone they don't like


i literally know that, i was responding to


BanEvasion said:


> We're talking about the TX massacre here, not health care. The TX massacre was also not racially motivated. Tucker Carlson should be publicly executed along with Alex Jones and several others I could name.


at the time


----------



## MariArch (May 26, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> The problem is that there's a strong correlation that more educated people are more left leaning. Which means if a news outlet tries to dump a pile of shit, to that audience, it doesn't fly, due to being able to realize it is a pile of shit.


You are, in fact, an elitist. And super far up your own ass. As long as elitists keep thinking like this about their political opponents,  and disregarding any of the real concerns people have about stuff like immigration, federal overreach, and the insistance on butting into people's lives. they can keep expecting people to give them the middle finger.


----------



## Nothereed (May 26, 2022)

MariArch said:


> Again. Cite from the manifesto where the shooter says he watched Tucker Carlson and that he got conspiracy theories about Jews trying to replaces whites from his show.. You won't find it.


No your correct, I won't find it. Because he doesn't mention specifically Tucker Carlson. But he does mention the Great Replacement Theory, something that Tucker gave a megaphone to for years. and spoke about it almost every night he could.
However I don't have to have the person say it directly. If someone is saying something for over 8 years, something that is a conspiracy theory to that level, something that you would find on 4chan of all places. It's hard to believe that Tucker was not, in any shape or form, responsible for the killer's mindset. I didn't even mention jews. The replacement theory primarily pertains to illegal immigrants, and that somehow they are all going to flood vote for democrats and take away your culture and some other bullshit.



MariArch said:


> You are, in fact, an elitist. And super far up your own ass. As long as elitists keep thinking like this about their political opponents, and disregarding any of the real concerns people have about stuff like immigration,* federal overreach*, and the insistance on butting into people's lives. they can keep expecting people to give them the middle finger.


Then why are you proposing that guns should be banned then?
And if I was super far up my own ass, why would I agree with someone I have historically disagreed with?


----------



## MariArch (May 26, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> No your correct, I won't find it. Because he doesn't mention specifically Tucker Carlson. But he does mention the Great Replacement Theory, something that Tucker gave a megaphone to for years. and spoke about it almost every night he could.
> However I don't have to have the person say it directly. If someone is saying something for over 8 years, something that is a conspiracy theory to that level, something that you would find on 4chan of all places. It's hard to believe that Tucker was not, in any shape or form, responsible for the killer's mindset. I didn't even mention jews. The replacement theory primarily pertains to illegal immigrants, and that somehow they are all going to flood vote for democrats and take away your culture and some other bullshit.


ok.. but the Great Replacement theory that the shooter spotted was specifically about an apparent secret elite of Jews that is trying to replace the white race. You'll have to show me the time Tucker said that.. oh wait, you won't.

Again, conflating Tucker Carlson talking about illegal immigration and worries about said folks not integrating into American culture with the Great Replacement theory, which is explicitly anti semitic schizo shit is just brushing off people's genuine concerns about illegal immigration.



Nothereed said:


> Then why are you proposing that guns should be banned then?
> And if I was super far up my own ass, why would I agree with someone I have historically disagreed with?


??? I never said guns should be banned. I am a proud gun owner lol


----------



## Nothereed (May 26, 2022)

MariArch said:


> ok.. but the Great Replacement theory that the shooter spotted was specifically about an* apparent secret elite of Jews *that is trying to replace the white race. You'll have to show me the time Tucker said that.. oh wait, you won't.


No because I didn't mention jews either. I mentioned the holocaust, but I didn't mention jews with the great replacement theory.
And since you challenged me to prove that tucker made such an argument (except obviously not jews) here, let me go ahead and find it.


Specifically, he is linking illegals (which is already a whistle for Mexicans) to helping the democrats gain electoral power (even though, that's not how that works in the slightest) That their (tuckers base) power is being replaced.


MariArch said:


> ??? I never said guns should be banned. I am a proud gun owner lol


this part I do have to apologize I mistook you for a different user here was bashing on me for my mental health stance, saying that Europe solved the issue. sorry for putting words in your mouth.



MariArch said:


> As long as elitists keep thinking like this about their political opponents, and disregarding any of the real concerns people have about stuff like immigration, federal overreach, and the insistance on butting into people's lives. they can keep expecting people to give them the middle finger.


Back the whole "I'm an elitist" I'm not. I work a bit a decent bit over minimum wage. I have a boss that is causing my coworkers and I pain. (when your boss screams at your coworker that they don't know how to do their job, and when my coworker asks if they know how to do our job, he respond with he doesn't)
Leftists, not democrats, don't want to butt into people lives. but here we are.
We have a party who wants to remove abortion rights (Sure the removal of Roe v Wade makes it into states rights, and doesn't outright ban it. But a little under half the country has trigger laws, which might as well be the same action as banning it)
We have the fact those same justices are also looking into removing gay marriage. We have a Texas governor who blatantly does not understand trans people in the slightest or how the process works out.
We then have that same party party non stop saying "They're out to take your guns, they're out to remove your vote, they're evil, they're xyz"
And so we end up having to constantly defend ourselves.


----------



## Viri (May 26, 2022)

Nobody is taking my guns. And I'm actually half way done saving up for an AR-15.


----------



## omgcat (May 26, 2022)

the school shootings are the only abortions the GOP actively support. otherwise they would do something to protect the tens of kids killed every year. abortion in the 21st-54th trimester is juuuust fine.


----------



## stanleyopar2000 (May 26, 2022)

"The problem is mental health"

--so will you help fund mental health and expand access to healthcare?--

"absolutely not."


----------



## Nikokaro (May 26, 2022)

I have just woken up to find, to my utmost surprise, that the title of my thread has been slightly changed (guns instead of arms), and that it has sparked some interest. I will calmly read all the posts and possibly reply to some, time permitting. 

So, someone rightly noted the connection between this issue (easy access to guns) and mental health care. But I would like to point out that, almost always, those who have mental problems do not know they have them, do not want to admit it, or simply do not want to treat themselves. He would rather blow himself to hell along with everyone else than get treatment. 
And then, a person who has always been considered normal, from one moment to the next can have a rapture, a seizure, a momentary insanity, go on a killing spree, and then become lucid again, and perhaps repent.

No!, mental illness (potential, latent or overt) is too prevalent nowadays to consider it rare, accidental or a distant danger.

Besides, how far can self-defense be considered lawful? A guy punches me, and I shoot him? What if he taunts me, provokes me? What if he looks at me threateningly, and I fear he will attack me (instead maybe he was simply brooding, looking into the void)?

Again no!...Your selfishness, mistrust, closure, possessiveness, extreme materialism, lack of solidarity, will be what will lead you to ruin if you all do not find a new balance, based on free integration of others, acceptance of the different, solidarity, without that obsessive fear of losing your property and being deprived of your selfish rights.

So thinks, a humble, distant admirer (but critical and partially repentant) of the american dream and its freedom at all costs.


----------



## Xzi (May 26, 2022)

We do need more common sense gun laws, including federal red flag laws and more comprehensive background checks.  We also need to fund better mental healthcare in this country, preferably universal mental healthcare.  The problem?  Republicans are not interested in doing either of these things.  They just use the mental health talking point as a delay tactic until everybody moves on to the next big story.  American suffering is a major feature of their policy platform, not a bug.


----------



## Hanafuda (May 26, 2022)

I'd just like to know where these two 18 year olds who committed these recent shootings got the money for the weapons, the ammo, and the body armor and bulletproof helmets? That shit costs a lot of money. A LOT of money. The Uvalde shooter was "bullied because he was poor," lived with his grandmother in a shack-house, and had a part-time job at Wendy's. But on his 18th birthday he bought two Daniel Defense rifles, each at least $2000. Plus the ammo and the body armor, estimates put his "gear" investment at about $6000. Did you have that kind of money put together when you were in high school???


----------



## Marc_LFD (May 26, 2022)

Don't you guys read or hear news from Texas? I wish I could say this surprised, but it didn't. Shooting happen every day and even if you banned guns, it's not as if people couldn't get them, anyway.

The ones you'd be punishing would be law abiding citizens by banning. Instead of banning, make more background checks and tests to see if the person is mentally and physically eligible to own one.

If he'd use a knife or a crossbow it'd be less deadly although there'd still be victims. Or if he used a car to run over people, or a truck. Anything can be used as a weapon, to be honest.


----------



## pustal (May 26, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> the problem is mental health, not guns.
> 
> gun control just leaves us law abiding citizens without self defense, since criminals don't follow the law and will keep their guns.


You have mental health problems everywhere. What other countries do is make sure you are mentally fit to have a gun. Also tighter background checks or extensive gun safety training like in Switzerland, bullet serialization and registry, limits on what kind of guns you can have at home, etc.

China had school attacks a few years back, but because kids don't have access to guns, death count was in the order of units. Guns are tools made for the sole purpose of killing. If people have easy access to them, without checking if they are fit, capable and without ill intention, you're gonna multiply tragedies in number and in numbers.

This narrative goes in circles everytime a shooting happens in USA:

- What can we do?

- Regulate guns.

- That won't work, and guns aren't the problem look at X (typically Switzerland).

- Switzerland checks and balances you don't want to put in place, starting by intensive gun and gun safety training.

- That's authoritarianism! (lol)

I mean, what do you want? Safety, security and civility, or anarchy? You can't have both. The choice has been anarchy, in detriment to hundreds and thousands at this point of innocent lives, mainly children.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 26, 2022)

pustal said:


> You have mental health problems everywhere. What other countries do is make sure you are mentally fit to have a gun. Also tighter background checks or extensive gun safety training like in Switzerland, bullet serialization and registry, limits on what kind of guns you can have at home, etc.
> 
> China had school attacks a few years back, but because kids don't have access to guns, death count was in the order of units. Guns are tools made for the sole purpose of killing. If people have easy access to them, without checking if they are fit, capable and without ill intention, you're gonna multiply tragedies in number and in numbers.
> 
> ...


mental health plays a huge point in shootings, so if we banned guns, that doesn't take care of the mental health part, or vice versa.

We could use a better background check, but that's literally about it. Mental health should be focused on way more.

Also, we have so many guns at this point, that if we banned guns, criminals can go on the black market and shoot all of us law abiding citizens, considering the fact that since we abide by the law, we are now easy pickings for robbers, rapists, and serial killers.


----------



## Glyptofane (May 26, 2022)

The cops just stood around outside the school for 90 minutes letting it happen. These pigs aren't going to save you and it usually just puts you in even more danger if you call them. If anything, this is a case for _more_ guns if you want to be able to protect yourself since the cops definitely won't.


----------



## AncientBoi (May 26, 2022)




----------



## Xzi (May 26, 2022)

Glyptofane said:


> The cops just stood around outside the school for 90 minutes letting it happen. These pigs aren't going to save you and it usually just puts you in even more danger if you call them. If anything, this is a case for _more_ guns if you want to be able to protect yourself since the cops definitely won't.


While this does have the potential to keep peoples' homes safe, it also has the potential to make public spaces more unsafe.  It's insane to let _everybody_ continue to have easy access to guns, because almost _nobody_ has easy access to good therapy. And _this_ is the country that wants to force a baby boom. Fix yo shit, America.


----------



## Taleweaver (May 26, 2022)

...

Isn't it time we started thinking of evacuating people who want to live in a normal country? It's the same fucking carousel of arguments every time a mass shooting happens.
Well... A shooting that still manages to shock the world (I'm lead to believe that gun incidents are just a daily occurrence in your shooting gallery you call a country). Once the us just consists of gun nuts, we can just let them fight it out among themselves.


----------



## omgcat (May 26, 2022)

Glyptofane said:


> The cops just stood around outside the school for 90 minutes letting it happen. These pigs aren't going to save you and it usually just puts you in even more danger if you call them. If anything, this is a case for _more_ guns if you want to be able to protect yourself since the cops definitely won't.


more guns is stupid, the more bullets flying in an area, the more innocent people get hurt. it's really not that hard to understand, especially when we have scenarios where the "good guy with a gun" gets blasted because how can you tell they are actually a good guy? like this https://www.npr.org/2018/11/13/6672...security-guard-who-detained-suspected-shooter.


----------



## Xzi (May 26, 2022)

Taleweaver said:


> ...
> 
> Isn't it time we started thinking of evacuating people who want to live in a normal country? It's the same fucking carousel of arguments every time a mass shooting happens.
> Well... A shooting that still manages to shock the world (I'm lead to believe that gun incidents are just a daily occurrence in your shooting gallery you call a country). Once the us just consists of gun nuts, we can just let them fight it out among themselves.


For real.  The rest of the world needs to start treating the US like the third-world country it is now, sending humanitarian aid and giving us cost-efficient paths for migrating to countries with a much higher floor for social spending.  Start running some, "for XX cents a day you could put body armor on American kindergartners" commercials.  Then _maybe_ a few politicians might feel the need to do something about it, though still probably not enough.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 26, 2022)

shootings aren't that bad in the US, people are just overreacting.

Hell gun deaths are overblown, they aren't too bad, it's just the really bad ones that get onto international news.


----------



## N7Kopper (May 26, 2022)

"We need fewer guns!" "We need more guns!"

We need fewer crazy people. We also need fewer people who have no idea what a fascist even is. A fascist is not "whatever definition best serves your ends right now" - a fascist is a type of socialist who believes in the Hegelian Synthesis of the public and private sectors. Fascists have written plenty about what they desire. (I suppose this is just the "fascists of the future will call themselves anti-fascist" thing in action, given that the World Economic Forum and Antifa have so many opinions in common.)



Xzi said:


> And _this_ is the country that wants to force a baby boom. Fix yo shit, America.


Where oh where is the option that the abortionist misses between "have a population explosion" and "murder loads of little babies"? It's that magical one where _women keep it in their knickers_. Does anyone even realise how hard Roe herself has been repenting for lying about being raped to coerce the US Supreme Court into legislating that women can kill kids? (The court isn't even _meant_ to do that. The Judicial branch has no power to make laws; but it can use the US constitution as a beatstick to do just that. Sometimes it's good - the First Amendment protections against censorship would only apply to Congress if the Supreme Court didn't make it illegal for the executive to censor anyone: but really the First itself should be changed to apply to everyone.)


----------



## Nikokaro (May 26, 2022)

I thank heaven (or my past karma) for being born and living in Italy, which compared to the US is heaven on earth. Even our famous and ruthless criminal organizations (Mafia, Camorra, 'Ndrangheta) have a code of conduct, a morality and a certain compassion towards the poor, which makes them (perhaps) better than some of your frustrated teenagers, misfits, with no values and future prospects, ready only to wreak havoc on them and those around them. We are sure that it is a true mental illness (paranoia, schizophrenia, bipolarism, depression) and not a much more widespread and understimated moral disease (not believe in the values of family, work, solidarity, cooperation, friendship but instead aim solely for easy gain, to narcissism and vanity, to sexual enjoyment without feeling, to the numbness and stupidity caused by alcohol, drugs and psychotropic meds)? ....


----------



## JaNDeRPeiCH (May 26, 2022)

Noctosphere said:


> Logic of republicans :
> There are too many guns in our country, that makes us vulnerable
> How will we deal with that?
> We will give more guns to peoples


Want to extinguish a fire? Throw more fire  thats the logic of the republicans .


----------



## seany1990 (May 26, 2022)

In America a gun is more valuable than a human life


----------



## Noctosphere (May 26, 2022)

seany1990 said:


> In America a gun is more valuable than a human life


Here in quebec, a mere revolver is worth over 5k$
So when a kill is commited with it, the criminal doesn't leave the gun on the crime scene, it's way too valuable
So right now, we've got like a couple of cases where multiple murders are connected by the same weapons


----------



## AleronIves (May 26, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> Guns aren't the problem here, the problem is mental health.


Mental health is an important component, but it's hardly the full story. Other countries have people with mental health problems, and they don't suffer frequent mass shootings the way the US does. Why? People don't have easy access to guns.



pokota said:


> In theory having that many gun owners around should discourage mass shootings


This seems to be a common misconception. Mass shooters have already given up their will to live; they don't care if one of their potential victims also has a gun and might shoot first. They just want to take out as many people as they can before they die.


----------



## pustal (May 27, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> shootings aren't that bad in the US, people are just overreacting.
> 
> Hell gun deaths are overblown, they aren't too bad, it's just the really bad ones that get onto international news.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 27, 2022)

pustal said:


> View attachment 311537


that is 30 years.

if it was 5 years, or hell, even 10 years, I'd understand your point

But, alas, it is 30 years, so still very overblown.


----------



## pustal (May 27, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> that is 30 years.
> 
> if it was 5 years, or hell, even 10 years, I'd understand your point
> 
> But, alas, it is 30 years, so still very overblown.


Here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States

Choose your arbitrary timeframe. Then, if you'd like to get real, you can stop and think why are you trying to rationalize and excuse the unexcusable.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 27, 2022)

w


pustal said:


> Here:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States
> 
> Choose your arbitrary timeframe. Then, if you'd like to get real, you can stop and think why are trying to rationalize and excuse the unexcusable.


wait, saying the right to own guns should be kept is unexcusable? what kind of backwards ass world do we live in?


----------



## pustal (May 27, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> w
> 
> wait, saying the right to own guns should be kept is unexcusable? what kind of backwards ass world do we live in?


No, saying



KennyAtom said:


> shootings aren't that bad in the US, people are just overreacting.
> 
> Hell gun deaths are overblown, they aren't too bad, it's just the really bad ones that get onto international news.



"shooting aren't that bad in he US" is excusing the unexcusable. a) the US is a horror show of mass shootings and b) if you have a recurring mass shootings "it is that bad".

As for "what kind of backwards ass world do we live in?". I live in a gun regulated world were kids don't get mass murderer often. You live in a world where they do. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


----------



## KennyAtom (May 27, 2022)

pustal said:


> "shooting aren't that bad in he US" is excusing the unexcusable. a) the US is a horror show of mass shootings and b) if you have a recurring mass shootings "it is that bad".
> 
> As for "what kind of backwards ass world do we live in?". I live in a gun regulated world were kids don't get mass murderer every often. You live in a world where they do. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


I was not excusing mass shootings, they're horrible. I was just saying that they aren't that bad in the US, I've never seen a mass shooting in my life other than on the news. The only time when I've seen a shooting of any kind was when someone was killed at an apartment 3 blocks from my house with a pistol.

The only time shootings are seen on the news is when a ton of people are shot, and that's way overblown on the news. Are they horrible? Yes, but they are overblown and we don't deserve to lose our guns because of a few bad apples.


----------



## AleronIves (May 27, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> I was not excusing mass shootings, they're horrible. I was just saying that they aren't that bad in the US


That's pretty relative. If you live in Spain, which according to @pustal's source has had only one shooting in the last thirty years, you'd probably say that mass shootings in the US are indeed very bad and totally out of control.


----------



## Noctosphere (May 27, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> I was not excusing mass shootings, they're horrible. I was just saying that they aren't that bad in the US, I've never seen a mass shooting in my life other than on the news. The only time when I've seen a shooting of any kind was when someone was killed at an apartment 3 blocks from my house with a pistol.
> 
> The only time shootings are seen on the news is when a ton of people are shot, and that's way overblown on the news. Are they horrible? Yes, but they are overblown and we don't deserve to lose our guns because of a few bad apples.


you are pathetic

you say "mass shooting aren't that bad in the US"
You know what that means? it means you are used to it


----------



## KennyAtom (May 27, 2022)

Noctosphere said:


> you are pathetic


and for what reason?


Noctosphere said:


> you say "mass shooting aren't that bad in the US"
> You know what that means? it means you are used to it


Or maybe it's because it doesn't happen all that often


----------



## Noctosphere (May 27, 2022)

You literally say that to be affected by a mass shooting, you need to be one of its victim, meaning you don't care about victims of mass shooting as long as it's not you

pathetic...


----------



## pustal (May 27, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> I was not excusing mass shootings, they're horrible. I was just saying that they aren't that bad in the US, I've never seen a mass shooting in my life other than on the news. The only time when I've seen a shooting of any kind was when someone was killed at an apartment 3 blocks from my house with a pistol.
> 
> The only time shootings are seen on the news is when a ton of people are shot, and that's way overblown on the news. Are they horrible? Yes, but they are overblown and we don't deserve to lose our guns because of a few bad apples.


A few? Have you open the list? That's not a few.

And the ideia is for you to lose your guns or access to them *if you are not mentally capable of handling your gun* or if you have criminal background. You complain the problem is mental health. Yet you refuse to consider barring people in poor mental health to be restricted of owning a gun.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 27, 2022)

Noctosphere said:


> You literally say that to be affected by a mass shooting, you need to be one of its victim, meaning you don't care about victims of mass shooting as long as it's not you


I literally never said that.  Hell, a few posts earlier, I said


KennyAtom said:


> I was not excusing mass shootings, they're horrible.
> 
> 
> ...Are they horrible? Yes...





pustal said:


> And the ideia is for you to lose your guns or access to them *if you are not mentally capable of handling your gun* or if you have criminal background. You complain the problem is mental health. Yet you refuse to consider barring people in poor mental health to be restricted of owning a gun.


Maybe explain that next time instead of just saying removing guns?

Since the liberals here talk about removing guns from everyone but cops a lot, I always presume it means everyone except stated otherwise.

I am sorry for misunderstanding though.


----------



## Noctosphere (May 27, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> I literally never said that.  Hell, a few posts earlier, I said


but you also said this and I'm quoting


KennyAtom said:


> I was not excusing mass shootings, they're horrible. I was just saying that they aren't that bad in the US,* I've never seen a mass shooting in my life other than on the news*. The only time when I've seen a shooting of any kind was when someone was killed at an apartment 3 blocks from my house with a pistol.
> 
> The only time shootings are seen on the news is when a ton of people are shot, and that's way overblown on the news. Are they horrible? Yes, but they are overblown and we don't deserve to lose our guns because of a few bad apples.


Where else do you  want to see a mass shooting?
When you say such stuff, it means exactly what i said, that you don't care about mass shooting as long as you're not the victim


----------



## Bricked (May 27, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> shootings aren't that bad in the US, people are just overreacting.
> 
> Hell gun deaths are overblown, they aren't too bad, it's just the really bad ones that get onto international news.



Recently released data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) shows that firmarm related injuries overtook car crashes to become the number one killer of teenagers and children in the USA as of 2020.

I would neither call that "not that bad" nor "overblown".


----------



## Noctosphere (May 27, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> Maybe explain that next time instead of just saying removing guns?
> 
> Since the liberals here talk about removing guns from everyone but cops a lot, I always presume it means everyone except stated otherwise.
> 
> I am sorry for misunderstanding though.


Well, here in canada, assault rifle and military weapon are forbidden to everyone but cops and military, so yes, I say it should also be that way in usa, it would prevent TONS of shooting


----------



## KennyAtom (May 27, 2022)

Noctosphere said:


> Well, here in canada, assault rifle and military weapon are forbidden to everyone but cops and military, so yes, I say it should also be that way in usa, it would prevent TONS of shooting


hell no, the 2nd amendment says the right to own arms, it doesn't say "the right to own arms except assault rifles and military weapons!"

also every gun is a military weapon so technically no one except criminals will own guns, and now criminals have the upper hand, they can rape you now, shoot you, rob you, and since you are a law abiding citizen, you cannot do anything as the cops have banned guns for you.


----------



## Noctosphere (May 27, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> hell no, the 2nd amendment says the right to own arms, it doesn't say "the right to own arms except assault rifles and military weapons!"
> 
> also every gun is a military weapon so technically no one except criminals will own guns, and now criminals have the upper hand, they can rape you now, shoot you, rob you, and since you are a law abiding citizen, you cannot do anything as the cops have banned guns for you.


EXACTLY WHAT I MEAN, that fucking 2nd amendment is something from the past and should (must) be abolished

As for military weapons, no, not all guns are considered military weapons, far from that
Some are hunting weapons, some like handguns aren't either, those are allowed in canada to everyone
However, you have to be allowed by autorithies to carry it and/or own it
Because yes, some people in Canada are allowed to own a weapon but not to carry it, meaning they can only use it for self defense at home
As for raping robbing etc, yes the criminal has the upper hand. So what? With technologies these days, polices will trace the guy easily
Most of these crime are solved nowaday.
Those that aren't are for the most crimes of the past (80's 90's crime that have never been and will never be solved)
If you are that afraid of being attacked by stranger, there are other ways to defend yourself like having a selfdefence teacher to teach you and carry pepper spray or tasergun
Pepper spray and Taser are allowed and won't kill anyone and protect you

In short,your argument has no logic except for you


----------



## KennyAtom (May 27, 2022)

Noctosphere said:


> EXACTLY WHAT I MEAN, that fucking 2nd amendment is something from the past and should (must) be abolished


If it's abolished, we'll become a third world country. Guns are good, and if they're banned, that'll suck. especially since we cannot protect ourselves anymore while the criminals can shoot us all they want. 

Also, one constitutional right removed, more will follow.

Free speech is overrated, bye bye 1st amendment!

speedy trials suck, bye bye 6th amendment!

cops cannot take your stuff in your house without a warrant, but you have this cool ass xbox series x! bye bye 4th amendment!


Noctosphere said:


> As for military weapons, no, not all guns are considered military weapons, far from that
> Some are hunting weapons, some like handguns aren't either, those are allowed in canada to everyone


That makes sense


Noctosphere said:


> As for raping robbing etc, yes the criminal has the upper hand. So what? With technologies these days, polices will trace the guy easily
> Most of these crime are solved nowaday.
> Those that aren't are for the most crimes of the past (80's 90's crime that have never been and will never be solved)


While that's true, will that be good for a raped robbed dead guy? no, that's why we need guns.


Noctosphere said:


> If you are that afraid of being attacked by stranger, there are other ways to defend yourself like having a selfdefence teacher to teach you and carry pepper spray or tasergun
> Pepper spray and Taser are allowed and won't kill anyone and protect you


Yeah, but how long until pepper spray and tasers are banned like in britian?


----------



## Noctosphere (May 27, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> If it's abolished, we'll become a third world country. Guns are good, and if they're banned, that'll suck. especially since we cannot protect ourselves anymore while the criminals can shoot us all they want.
> 
> Also, one constitutional right removed, more will follow.
> 
> ...


I really hope you're not serious
a third world country?
You mean like Canada is a third world country?
You mean the whole Europe is made of third world country?

In our countries, most guns are banned from public peoples, are we third world countries? Hell no

And because one amendment (that as i said is something from the past) is abolished, do you REALLY think all others will be abolished too?

I guarrentee you that if assault rifles are banned from publics in usa, free speech will still be there, warrant will still be there
YOU are overexagerating, way way way too much


----------



## KennyAtom (May 27, 2022)

Noctosphere said:


> I really hope you're not serious
> a third world country?
> You mean like Canada is a third world country?
> You mean the whole Europe is made of third world country?


I was exaggrating, but it wouldn't be far from it


Noctosphere said:


> And because one amendment (that as i said is something from the past) is abolished, do you REALLY think all others will be abolished too?
> 
> I guarrentee you that if assault rifles are banned from publics in usa, free speech will still be there, warrant will still be there
> YOU are overexagerating, way way way too much


Yeah right, they're always out to get you. Once they find out they can get away with removing an amendment, they'll remove more, and more, until it straight up becomes 1984 again and you're stuck in a hellhole.


----------



## Noctosphere (May 27, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> I was exaggrating, but it wouldn't be far from it
> 
> Yeah right, they're always out to get you. Once they find out they can get away with removing an amendment, they'll remove more, and more, until it straight up becomes 1984 again and you're stuck in a hellhole.


you are aware that 90% of americans want guns in usa to be restrained?
Why aren't they? Because of 50 senators, that's the only reason
I guess you are part of the other 10%


----------



## KennyAtom (May 27, 2022)

Noctosphere said:


> you are aware that 90% of americans want guns in usa to be restrained?
> Why aren't they? Because of 50 senators, that's the only reason
> I guess you are part of the other 10%


well i'm part of it because if guns are removed we'll get fucked

they'll remove more and more rights because now there aren't good people with guns to prevent them from infringing on our rights


----------



## Noctosphere (May 27, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> well i'm part of it because if guns are removed we'll get fucked
> 
> they'll remove more and more rights because now there aren't good people with guns to prevent them from infringing on our rights


so your solution to mass shooting in school is the same as trump, right?
Arming teachers?


----------



## KennyAtom (May 27, 2022)

Noctosphere said:


> so your solution to mass shooting in school is the same as trump, right?
> Arming teachers?


well no, but yes as well.

We need more armed guards at school, any teacher who has demonstrated proficiency in gun safety should get one as well just in case.


----------



## Noctosphere (May 27, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> well no, but yes as well.
> 
> We need more armed guards at school, any teacher who has demonstrated proficiency in gun safety should get one as well just in case.


i see...
Well, if I learned something from Internet is there is no point in arguing with peoples like you
I'm so out of here


----------



## KennyAtom (May 27, 2022)

Noctosphere said:


> i see...
> Well, if I learned something from Internet is there is no point in arguing with peoples like you
> I'm so out of here


what did i do this time?


----------



## Noctosphere (May 27, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> what did i do this time?


there is just no point in arguing with you
Muhricans who think that every problem can be solved with guns... there are nothing to do with them
We should exile all of them in Texas and let the 2nd amendment be there and abolish it in other 49 states
If it was that way, you guys in Texas would keep doing mass shooting and all other states would live in fucking peace

Then, maybe someday, you guys in texas would read the journal and see the big title :
"United States owns the record of number of mass shooting in the world"

You would read the news, thinking "HA, knew it, nothing has changed"
Then the news follows like this :
"60% of mass shooting in the world last year occured in USA.
However, in the whole usa, 96% of those mass shooting occured in Texas"

Trust me, if it happens the way i said above, that article WILL show up in New York Times someday


----------



## KennyAtom (May 27, 2022)

Noctosphere said:


> there is just no point in arguing with you
> Muhricans who think that every problem can be solved with guns... there are nothing to do with them
> We should exile all of them in Texas and let the 2nd amendment be there and abolish it in other 49 states
> If it was that way, you guys in Texas would keep doing mass shooting and all other states would live in fucking peace
> ...


wait, so you want people who enjoy guns sent to a single state?

I knew it, you guys want to send people to basically concentration camps just for having wrongthink. This shit is scary, and will always end badly.


----------



## Noctosphere (May 27, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> wait, so you want people who enjoy guns sent to a single state?
> 
> I knew it, you guys want to send people to basically concentration camps just for having wrongthink. This shit is scary, and will always end badly.


Have you even read what i wrote?

ffs, as i said, no point in arguing
See ya, wasn't that fun...


----------



## KennyAtom (May 27, 2022)

we


Noctosphere said:


> Have you even read what i wrote?
> 
> ffs, as i said, no point in arguing
> See ya, wasn't that fun...


well it was pretty fun for me, hearing opposing viewpoints from others

unfortunately, those opposing viewpoints were wrong, and saying you want people sent to a single state just because they enjoy guns is unironically kinda scary, considering the fact that this could spiral out of control and turn into concentration camps just because you believe something else that the liberals don't want you to believe.


----------



## The Catboy (May 27, 2022)

Weird how this only keeps happening in the US


----------



## AleronIves (May 27, 2022)

Noctosphere said:


> EXACTLY WHAT I MEAN, that fucking 2nd amendment is something from the past and should (must) be abolished


It's worth noting that full repeal of the Second Amendment is not required to reach the desired outcome. Until 2008, the Second Amendment only officially protected the right for people to keep and bear arms in relation to militia service. Since the US was founded by the people rising up to break away from what they considered an oppressive government, the framers of the US Constitution thought it wise to prevent the new government from curtailing the people's ability to do the same thing in the future.

It wasn't until 2008's DC vs Heller that the US Supreme Court decided that the Constitution gave individuals the right to keep and bear arms beyond the scope of militia service, at which point it became much harder for states to regulate guns without getting those regulations struck down in court. As such, repealing the Second Amendment is not necessary to make more stringent gun regulations possible; DC vs Heller just needs to be overturned. Since Republicans now control the SCOTUS 6 to 3, this is highly unlikely to happen, which makes trying to regulate guns somewhat futile.

It would also be possible to amend the US Constitution to clarify that the Second Amendment only protects the states' right to operate militias, but the SCOTUS would probably strike the amendment down as being unconstitutional, since the current SCOTUS agrees with DC vs Heller that the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms is not restricted to militia service. The US is also so divided on gun rights that it would never secure the votes required to pass such an amendment in the first place.

Without significant changes of leadership in statehouses, Congress, and the SCOTUS, little to nothing can be done about gun violence. Even if you regulate guns at the state level, people can easily carry guns across state lines, since people have freedom of movement from state to state. Now 3D printing is also making it possible for people to manufacture their own guns, which makes gun control even more difficult.

I think this may at least partially answer @Nikokaro's question about why the US doesn't act to curtail gun violence. There are methods to address it, but until people start electing different representatives, there is no political will to get it done.


----------



## Hanafuda (May 27, 2022)

Noctosphere said:


> so your solution to mass shooting in school is the same as trump, right?
> Arming teachers?




What works at federal courthouses?

What works at airports?

Do that.

The metal detectors could be built as the frame of the entrance door. Less obtrusive, less possible to evade too. Doesn't have to be a stand-alone apparatus like we're used to seeing at airports, courthouses.

They seem to be willing to spend the money to protect their federal judges, airplanes, and big buildings, but not our kids?



The Catboy said:


> Weird how this only keeps happening in the US



Weird how when I was in high school (and before), it was pretty normal to bring a rifle to school. Maybe you went hunting before school. Maybe youre going hunting after school. Maybe the school has a rifle club. But it was no big deal, and we didn't shoot each other.

Guns haven't changed ...  AR-15's been around since the 50's. Semi autos with more than 10rd capacity go back a lot further. And it used to be perfectly legal to buy a full-auto machine gun. Mail order. (Prohibition ruined that.)

It's people that've changed. People in the US.


----------



## pokota (May 27, 2022)

Noctosphere said:


> EXACTLY WHAT I MEAN, that fucking 2nd amendment is something from the past and should (must) be abolished


Time for US Government Class, I guess.

The 2nd amendment is literally part of the US Consitution, which means we would need a new amendment to repeal it. 

1. The only amendment to be repealed ever was the 18th amendment.
2. Passing an amendment isn't like pushing a new law through Congress because it is _a fundamental change in the Government_ and there are specific things that have to be done - it has to pass both at the Federal level like any other law, but it also has to pass a _Convention of the States. _If you've ever seen the shitshow that is a presidential election, think of that but with even more strict requirements to find a "winner" - you need 75% of states to report a favorable majority for an amendment to proceed onward. We can't even get 50%+1 to agree on who should be the president.

The main advantage to a constitutional amendment passing is that the Supreme Court then would have to honor it, exactly because _it's then part of the Constitution_.


----------



## tabzer (May 27, 2022)

If only we could have seen it coming.


----------



## Nikokaro (May 27, 2022)

tabzer said:


> If only we could have seen it coming.


I don't have permission to access that article. Very strange.  It would have been interesting to read. What was it about?


----------



## tabzer (May 27, 2022)

Nikokaro said:


> I don't have permission to access that article. Very strange.  It would have been interesting to read. What was it about?



Local news station report.  4 years ago.  About a couple of students, planning to do a mass shooting in 2022.  At the same school.  At this point, whoever is running the show might as well have bought the guns and provided instruction on how to use them.  I'm in Japan and can see it.  Maybe try VPN.

Basically these kids wanted to "feel like god".  If that's a gun problem, you tell me.

Something needs stricter controls.  Maybe law enforcement agencies?  This was seen from 4 years away.  I don't know how many miles you can travel in 4 years.


"
Author: Henry Ramos
Published: 10:34 PM CDT May 3, 2018
Updated: 10:34 PM CDT May 3, 2018
Two Uvalde teens were recently arrested for Conspiracy to Commit Murder after officers said they foiled a mass-shooting plot the pair had schemed.
A press release obtained by KENS 5 thoroughly chronicles events leading up to an investigation performed by the Uvalde Police Department and the Texas Rangers.

In the press release, Uvalde Chief of Police Daniel Rodriguez said that a Morales Junior High School student,14, and a former Morales student, 13, had specifically targeted numerous students in what they described as a plan to perform a "mass casualty event against the school."
Authorities said the students were motivated in large part by the Columbine shootings:
_"The investigation revealed that the students were infatuated with the Columbine High School shootings and identified themselves to the shooters. The investigation uncovered that the students even referred to themselves using the Columbine shooter's names."_
Investigators also believe the students were planning to hold the attacks years from now during their senior year, on the anniversary of the Columbine shooting. However, one of the students began to convince the other that they should move the attacks up to this year.
"One of the students had numerous writings and drawings which depicted weapons capable of causing mass destruction. He wrote about being "God-like" and killing police and other persons. He had an academic analysis of one of the Columbine shooter's journals," the release stated.
According to the release, the teens were also planning on detonating IED's before killing students from a list 'ranked by priority.'
After that, the release states the pair were going to kill at random before eventually turning the guns on themselves.
“Any kids that had talked bad about them or said anything they did not like, basically, they said they were going to go and kill them,” one student said. You just felt unsafe. And teachers have been bringing it to our attention that you can't be saying those things anymore. We can't do that. It is wrong.”
“It was scary. We hear it everywhere else, but you don't expect for it to happen in your town,” one parent said. “I am glad they were able to control the situation before anything does happen. And that they actually did something about it. Sometimes you think they're just going to hear it, and say it won't happen and dust it under the rug, and they actually did something.”

Both students were reportedly evaluated by mental health services on April 19, when the investigation led officials to the pair. The older of the two was released on April 23 into his mother's care.
On April 25, the pair were taken into custody again, and this time arrested for Conspiracy to Commit Murder.
Uvalde CISD issued a statement on Thursday:
_Our school district is committed to the safety and education of all our students and we want to clearly communicate about safety issues when they arise. One of our Morales Junior High students was experiencing a crisis. Upon rendering aid and support, the student revealed a future plan to conduct a school shooting in the year of 2022. With the type of detailed information that was revealed by the student to law enforcement and confirmed in their investigation, the student has been arrested and will not be returning to our school. Our school district has a strong partnership with our local law enforcement agencies and emergency responders. They share our commitment to student safety, and we are working closely with them to ensure all information is thoroughly evaluated and our school is as safe as possible.
We ask our parents to assist us in reminding their child/children of the importance of telling a staff member if they ever become aware of a plan to harm individuals or of a weapon at school. The STOPit app may be utilized by parents or students to inform administration of any inappropriate behavior. In this way, we are all working together to keep our schools safe.
Anne Marie Espinoza
Executive Director of Communications and Marketing"_


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 27, 2022)

LOL amazing how the "pro-life" (really: pro-birth) republicans here who get all high and mighty about the supposed rights of an embryo are so uninterested in the rights of actual, full-born children to live just because of their Freudian insecurity to compensate with guns.

It's almost as if y'all want children to be born just to abuse them and get them killed at a later date.

"[...] no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons.”

And I quote this as a Reagan-hater.


----------



## tabzer (May 27, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> LOL amazing how the "pro-life" (really: pro-birth) republicans here who get all high and mighty about the supposed rights of an embryo are so uninterested in the rights of actual, full-born children to live just because of their Freudian insecurity to compensate with guns.
> 
> It's almost as if y'all want children to be born just to abuse them and get them killed at a later date.
> 
> ...


I thought children in texas were born with guns.


----------



## Nikokaro (May 27, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Local news station report.  4 years ago.  About a couple of students, planning to do a mass shooting in 2022.  At the same school.  At this point, whoever is running the show might as well have bought the guns and provided instruction on how to use them.  I'm in Japan and can see it.  Maybe try VPN.
> 
> Basically these kids wanted to "feel like god".  If that's a gun problem, you tell me.
> 
> ...


Of course, America is not new to these attitudes. This will always be a possible and looming danger, as long as the government does not remedy the legislation. That this situation is indirectly due to the constitution and the difficulty of modifying it is absurd: it was created to protect individuals, and instead, becoming almost untouchable and unchangeable, paradoxically threatens their safety and rights. 
Then, as can be seen from this article, it is not about psychopaths or seriously mentally ill patients to be treated, but simple adolescents seized by anger, resentment, envy, insensitivity, jealousy, simple stupidity or pure evil: it is an ethical and moral problem, of values, education, and not to heal someone who is sick! 
Some people are blatantly irretrievable: purely and simply wicked. The fundamental question is that these individuals should not have easy access to weapons, by any means! I don't see what there is to discuss about this ...
Sorry for my bad english.


----------



## tabzer (May 27, 2022)

Nikokaro said:


> Of course, America is not new to these attitudes. This will always be a possible and looming danger, as long as the government does not remedy the legislation. That this situation is indirectly due to the constitution and the difficulty of modifying it is absurd: it was created to protect individuals, and instead, becoming almost untouchable and unchangeable, paradoxically threatens their safety and rights.
> Then, as can be seen from this article, it is not about psychopaths or seriously mentally ill patients to be treated, but simple adolescents seized by anger, resentment, envy, insensitivity, jealousy, simple stupidity or pure evil: it is an ethical and moral problem, of values, education, and not to heal someone who is sick!
> Some people are blatantly irretrievable: purely and simply wicked. The fundamental question is that these individuals should not have easy access to weapons, by any means! I don't see what there is to discuss about this ...
> Sorry for my bad english.


Yeah.  It's pretty crazy that kids who threaten to shoot up schools are able to purchase guns (source?), after being arrested for threatening to shoot up schools.  Law enforcement's role has been to not interfere, I guess.  Wait, they do interfere.  They stop parents from being the heroes and trying to save the kids.

"Who's your hero?"


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 27, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Yeah. It's pretty crazy that kids who threaten to shoot up schools are able to purchase guns (source?), after being arrested for threatening to shoot up schools. Law enforcement's role has been to not interfere, I guess. Wait, they do interfere. They stop parents from being the heroes and trying to save the kids.


If only they actually stepped in to save the kids rather than letting teachers sacrifice themselves.


----------



## tabzer (May 27, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> If only they actually stepped in to save the kids rather than letting teachers sacrifice themselves.


I actually agree with you.  That surprised me.

They only had 4 years to do it.  What, exactly, stopped them?

Seems the role of law enforcement is to respond to crimes, not stop them while they are happening.  They have to wait until they are finished?


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 27, 2022)

tabzer said:


> I actually agree with you. That surprised me.


Not difficult to agree with good sense, it would be problematic otherwise.


tabzer said:


> They only had 4 years to do it. What, exactly, stopped them?
> 
> Seems the role of law enforcement is to respond to crimes, not stop them while they are happening. They have to wait until they are finished?


Actually, one of the key competences of law enforcement is to PREVENT crime, not just a reactive role. When that isn't possible, their duty is to be as prompt as possible. Instead, they sat on their asses, all a dozen of them, and let two dozens of kids be slaughtered.

And thank you for quoting me in your signature, your Freudian complex becomes more and more obvious. And more and more sad.


----------



## Nikokaro (May 27, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Law enforcement's role has been to not interfere, I guess.


What do you mean by this? So what are they there for? To show off and brag about their uniform?


tabzer said:


> Wait, they do interfere. They stop parents from being the heroes and trying to save the kids.


Are you serious or are you exaggerating? If so, it is blatant nonsense! Welp, americans, who understands them !?!


----------



## tabzer (May 27, 2022)

Nikokaro said:


> What do you mean by this? So what are they there for? To show off and brag about their uniform?


They are there "to contain the situation".  Whatever that means.  Maybe they brag about their uniform in the meantime.



Nikokaro said:


> Are you serious or are you exaggerating?


I'm serious.  They were arresting parents for trying to go in and saving their children.  A parent, who was put in handcuffs, who knew the local law enforcement, was able to persuade the marshals (or whatever the higher tier in the heirarchy) to let her go.  She then went outside their view, hopped the fence, and saved her children.  A real hero.  (that's not allowed)


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 27, 2022)




----------



## tabzer (May 27, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> And thank you for quoting me in your signature, your Freudian complex becomes more and more obvious. And more and more sad.



If you are accusing me of being Freud, I don't know.  I just thought that the quote encompasses your persona pretty well.  You accuse someone of projecting, call them an incel, then make an incel joke, and then try to make it original by concluding it with something illogical.  It's very unique.  You are welcome.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 27, 2022)

tabzer said:


> If you are accusing me of being Freud, I don't know.  I just thought that the quote encompasses your persona pretty well.  You accuse someone of projecting, call them an incel, then make an incel joke, and *then try to make it original by concluding it with something illogical*.  It's very unique.  You are welcome.


Nothing of what you wrote is correct, especially the part, especially the part I put in bold, _minus habens_. Your ignorance is as amusing as your thick-as-pig-droppings stupidity.

Also, incel joke? a little reminder for you of what incel means, you silly sausage: "label for a group of men who blame women and feminism for their inability to find sexual partners".

There's literally nothing incel in what I said - in fact, I'd say it's quite the opposite, which anyone who noticed the emphasis I put on the word with scare quotes could understand. "Perhaps" you need to go back to school, you missed your reading comprehension classes 101.


----------



## tabzer (May 27, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Nothing of what you wrote is correct, especially the part, especially the part I put in bold, _minus habens_. Your ignorance is as amusing as your thick-as-pig-droppings stupidity.
> 
> Also, incel joke? a little reminder for you of what incel means, you silly sausage: "label for a group of men who blame women and feminism for their inability to find sexual partners".
> 
> There's literally nothing incel in what I said - in fact, I'd say it's quite the opposite, which anyone who noticed the emphasis I put on the word with scare quotes could understand. "Perhaps" you need to go back to school, you missed your reading comprehension classes 101.


You proposed promiscuity in a negative light.  There really isn't anything, there,  to discuss.  Please explain "no wonder you don't fit in doorways"


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 27, 2022)

tabzer said:


> You proposed promiscuity in a negative light.  There really isn't anything to discuss.


No, I mocked you for your incapacity to satisfy "your" mistress. Because even if you put, in your mistress sessions, twice the effort you put into being a vile being (which is quite a lot, despite how effortlessly unpleasant and nonsensical you are naturally), I can guarantee "your" mistress will be forced to seek solace elsewhere.

Also, you can blame yourself for the choice of words. "Mistress" means "a woman (other than the man's wife) having a sexual relationship with a married man." So the only one using words with negative connotations is you. Be more careful with your words, if you have the brainpower to process them.


----------



## JuanBaNaNa (May 27, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> No, I mocked you for your incapacity to satisfy "your" mistress. Because even if you put, in your mistress sessions, twice the effort you put into being a vile being (which is quite a lot, despite how effortlessly unpleasant and nonsensical you are naturally), I can guarantee "your" mistress will be forced to seek solace elsewhere.
> 
> Also, you can blame yourself for the choice of words. "Mistress" means "a woman (other than the man's wife) having a sexual relationship with a married man." So the only one using words with negative connotations is you. Be more careful with your words, if you have the brainpower to process them.


Wow. Thanks for explaining your offense.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 27, 2022)

JuanBaNaNa said:


> Wow. Thanks for explaining your offense.


Truth can be offensive. Besides, the whole idea of being an "incel" offence was ridiculous and I wouldn't stand for it, and certainly not from a rabid pro-birther hypocrite.


----------



## JuanBaNaNa (May 27, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Truth can be offensive. Besides, the whole idea of being an "incel" offence was ridiculous and I wouldn't stand for it, and certainly not from a rabid pro-birther hypocrite.


Thanks again. x2


----------



## Nikokaro (May 27, 2022)

@Dark_Ansem , you are welcome but please don't bicker, do not offend and stick to the topic, otherwise I will have to report you, regretfully, to the staff.


----------



## tabzer (May 27, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> No, I mocked you for your incapacity to satisfy "your" mistress. Because even if you put, in your mistress sessions, twice the effort you put into being a vile being (which is quite a lot, despite how effortlessly unpleasant and nonsensical you are naturally), I can guarantee "your" mistress will be forced to seek solace elsewhere.
> 
> Also, you can blame yourself for the choice of words. "Mistress" means "a woman (other than the man's wife) having a sexual relationship with a married man." So the only one using words with negative connotations is you. Be more careful with your words, if you have the brainpower to process them.


It's my "job to satisfy my mistress".  Okay.  If I was in the position, I would forgive you.  But I am not my mistress. 

You can't guarantee anything unless you presume to be an authority, which is direct conflict with... you know?

I don't care how you rationalize all of that.  I've already concluded.

The only question I have is about what you meant when you said,"no wonder you don't fit doorways"  Because you went from looking hypocritical to looking really stupid.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 27, 2022)

tabzer said:


> I don't care how you rationalize all of that. I've already concluded.


And your conclusion is as idiotic as your pro-birth "reasonings".


tabzer said:


> The only question I have is about what you meant when you said,"no wonder you don't fit doorways" Because you went from look hypocritical to looking really stupid.


Heh. Again, not my problem if you don't get it. Must be a cultural (or lack thereof, in your case) thing.


Nikokaro said:


> @Dark_Ansem , you are welcome but please don't bicker, do not offend and stick to the topic, otherwise I will have to report you, regretfully, to the staff.


I'm sure the big hypocritical snowflakes already did, and considering the obvious bias of the moderation team, which we are all aware of, action is coming. Because you know, Freedom of Speech is only for them to spew their bile, when it's thrown back at them it's hate speech.


----------



## tabzer (May 27, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> And your conclusion is as idiotic as your pro-birth "reasonings".
> 
> Heh. Again, not my problem if you don't get it. Must be a cultural (or lack thereof, in your case) thing.
> 
> I'm sure the big hypocritical snowflakes already did, and considering the obvious bias of the moderation team, which we are all aware of, action is coming.



You can believe I reported you, if that makes you feel better.  I haven't though.  Regardless, I still feel like my signature does best at capturing your unique "configuration".  

If it is a cultural thing, I would like to know more about it.  I could amend the explanation, for educational purposes.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 27, 2022)

tabzer said:


> You can believe I reported you, if that makes you feel better.  I haven't though.  Regardless, I still feel like my signature does best at capturing your unique "configuration".
> 
> If it is a cultural thing, I would like to know more about it.  I could amend the explanation, for educational purposes.


(Un)fortunately nothing you do makes me feel better. And you are entitled to your feelings, despite the fact that your political leader became famous for ridiculous slogans which include "F*ck your feelings". You'll notice, however, that I didn't say that. Because I'm not a seditious terrorist cultist-leader with a narcissistic personality, and ultimately a good guy, despite my temper.

It totally is a cultural thing, maybe not in the land of the freedumb, but in the Old Continent for sure. You'll also notice that we tend to have a more carefree approach about sex. Except the Holy See, and Poland.


----------



## tabzer (May 27, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> (Un)fortunately nothing you do makes me feel better. And you are entitled to your feelings, despite the fact that your political leader became famous for ridiculous slogans which include "F*ck your feelings". You'll notice, however, that I didn't say that. Because I'm not a seditious terrorist cultist-leader with a narcissistic personality, and ultimately a good guy, despite my temper.
> 
> It totally is a cultural thing, maybe not in the land of the freedumb, but in the Old Continent for sure.


I don't care about what you think about any of that.

Can you please explain "no wonder you don't fit doorways"?  Is it a knock on ego, or something about having to be fat for some reason related to being engaged with someone who has been the submissive subject of the whole town?


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 27, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Can you please explain "no wonder you don't fit doorways"? Is it a knock on ego, or something about having to be fat for some reason related to being engaged with someone who has been the submissive subject of the whole town?


Not even close.

Also, "submissive subject"?? Wow, way telling of your mindset.


----------



## Nikokaro (May 27, 2022)

Stop it once and for all !!!
If my thread is closed because of your childish, ridicolous and disrespectful attitude, I will no longer answer for my actions.....................


----------



## tabzer (May 27, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Not even close.
> 
> Also, "submissive subject"?? Wow, way telling of your mindset.



It comes from " being ridden by the whole town".  I'm sorry that you can't see that.



Nikokaro said:


> Stop it once and for all !!!
> If my thread is closed because of your childish, ridicolous and disrespectful attitude, I will no longer answer for my actions.....................


I mean no disrespect to the thread.  I felt like all of us agreed on something.  I feel compelled to respond to comments directed towards me.  I don't mean to impose an "attitude".


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 27, 2022)

tabzer said:


> It comes from " being ridden by the whole town".  I'm sorry that you can't see that.


Nah, it's just a visual metaphor with the pun being the word used for bikes. I'm sorry your vocabulary is so limited, and I'm even more sorry for those dreadful ideas of yours.


Nikokaro said:


> Stop it once and for all !!!
> If my thread is closed because of your childish, ridicolous and disrespectful attitude, I will no longer answer for my actions.....................


It won't. If you had been around the Trump thread you'd have seen that some RepubliKKKan Trumptards actively wished for me to be ran over by a car, or worse, and the thread is still up. Heck, they weren't even banned, only their posts deleted.


----------



## tabzer (May 27, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Nah, it's just a visual metaphor with the pun being the word used for bikes.


I'm very aware of you suggesting that my "mistress" must be like a bike.  That's literally the incel about it.

Check the first definition of mistress.


----------



## Nikokaro (May 27, 2022)

I was addressing both of you, not one of you in particular.


----------



## tabzer (May 27, 2022)

Nikokaro said:


> I was addressing both of you, not one of you in particular.



I know.  I can only speak for myself though.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 27, 2022)

tabzer said:


> I'm very aware of you suggesting that my "mistress" must be like a bike.  That's literally the incel about it.
> 
> Check the first definition of mistress.


No, it's not, as you well know, hypocritical liar.

And I don't need to, I provided that definition. I trust the dictionary more than I trust you. Not that I trust you in any way.


----------



## Robika (May 27, 2022)

These political threads just divide the community. I hate them.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 27, 2022)

Robika said:


> These political threads just divide the community. I hate them.


Or rather, they allow people to expose themselves for what they are. In this case, for pro-gun bigoted hypocrites.


----------



## Nikokaro (May 27, 2022)

Robika said:


> These political threads just divide the community. I hate them.


True, it is obvious, since this is the salient feature of politics (and western democracy): and that is not bad. But in this case they are arguing over previous, stupid issues of their own. It sounds to me like two kindergarten children bickering about language, meaning and wordplay.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 27, 2022)

Nikokaro said:


> True, it is obvious, since this is the salient feature of politics (and western democracy): and that is not bad. But in this case they are arguing over previous, stupid issues of their own. It sounds to me like two kindergarten children bickering about language, meaning and wordplay.


You can blame those pro-gun hypocrites, especially one, for their double standards and childish behaviour. I usually don't let it slide if someone slights me. Even more so when they mix it with nonsensical "arguments" in direct contradiction with each other.


----------



## tabzer (May 27, 2022)

Robika said:


> These political threads just divide the community. I hate them.



If you go to the places you appreciate about GBATemp, you won't see *this* as so much.  Some people create accounts just to participate in this subforum.  Some people like to participate in politics just to argue.  I admit that I am one of them.  Despite that, I would be glad to help Dark_ansem in modding his switch.


----------



## Taleweaver (May 27, 2022)

Xzi said:


> For real.  The rest of the world needs to start treating the US like the third-world country it is now, sending humanitarian aid and giving us cost-efficient paths for migrating to countries with a much higher floor for social spending.  Start running some, "for XX cents a day you could put body armor on American kindergartners" commercials.  Then _maybe_ a few politicians might feel the need to do something about it, though still probably not enough.


Equally for real: I think those politicians wouldn't get the sarcasm and just support the initiative.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 27, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> I'm sure the big hypocritical snowflakes already did, and considering the obvious bias of the moderation team, which we are all aware of, action is coming. Because you know, Freedom of Speech is only for them to spew their bile, when it's thrown back at them it's hate speech.


Kid, if the mods really were what you are saying they were, you'd be banned the moment you came out against abortion.

But they aren't, you just want a scapegoat to blame problems on.

also, for what it's worth, reporting is stupid unless they're actually breaking rules (spam, threatening violence)

As far as I can tell, you've been (technically) innocent, so I'd have no reason to ban you.


----------



## Nikokaro (May 27, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> also, for what it's worth, reporting is stupid unless they're actually breaking rules (spam, threatening violence)
> 
> As far as I can tell, you've been (technically) innocent, so I'd have no reason to ban you.


Isn't offending a user and calling him a stupid, ignorant, hypocrite breaking the rules? I see nothing innocent in that. Have you ever read the rules of this site?:
"Do not "flame", "bash", "troll" or harass others. Blatantly offensive comments or actions directed at others will not be tolerated. While we do allow members to debate and voice their own opinions, there will be a limit to how far a heated debate can go before it is closed by staff. If you harass someone you will be disciplined. Period."
Whether each of the staff acts at their own discretion, as it suits them, is another matter....


----------



## KennyAtom (May 27, 2022)

Nikokaro said:


> Isn't offending a user and calling him a stupid, ignorant, hypocrite breaking the rules? I see nothing innocent in that. Have you ever read the rules of this site?:
> "Do not "flame", "bash", "troll" or harass others. Blatantly offensive comments or actions directed at others will not be tolerated. While we do allow members to debate and voice their own opinions, there will be a limit to how far a heated debate can go before it is closed by staff. If you harass someone you will be disciplined. Period."
> Whether each of the staff acts at their own discretion, as it suits them, is another matter....


I mean, if you want to report them, go ahead, but I see no point in getting upset over words on a screen.

And yes, I've read the rules. I choose not to break them though, I don't choose to report people unless it's really egregious or something that makes my or someone else's access hell. (Spam and threatening violence, like that. Not some meanie words said in a rude way.)


----------



## AncientBoi (May 27, 2022)

update:

Official: IT WAS "WRONG DECISION" NOT TO BREACH CLASSROOM DOOR

Is the caption on the news, as they are holding the News Conference right now.


----------



## Nikokaro (May 27, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> I mean, if you want to report them, go ahead, but I see no point in getting upset over words on a screen.


It is no longer necessary (I wouldn't have done it anyway). The waters have calmed down, and we have already clarified in PM. And I discovered with pleasure that one of them is also my compatriot...


----------



## sley (May 27, 2022)

The second amendment makes sense in a huge country like the USA where police can't be everywhere but can't your two political parties agree on a rework on gun laws? 

Like having weapons registered to a person so gun owners need to be more responsible what happens with their guns. 
Just like how you need a license plate for a car.


----------



## AncientBoi (May 27, 2022)

sley said:


> The second amendment makes sense in a huge country like the USA where police can't be everywhere but can't your two political parties agree on a rework on gun laws?
> 
> Like having weapons registered to a person so gun owners need to be more responsible what happens with their guns.
> Just like how you need a license plate for a car.



The Right to Bare Arms. true


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 27, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> As far as I can tell, you've been (technically) innocent, so I'd have no reason to ban you.


You are not staff so you can't ban wet tissue paper.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 27, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> You are not staff so you can't ban wet tissue paper.


I fucked up wording, I meant _they_.


----------



## Nikokaro (May 27, 2022)

Apparently in Texas (and perhaps elsewhere) guns are easily found in some supermarkets, accessible even to kids.
One idiot interviewed by our italian reporter replied that gun ownership is in the DNA of Texans, and nothing can be done about it.
What kind of idiocy is this? That something is customary, and part of the past and tradition, does not mean it is right or necessary.
If it were really so, we would still be in the Stone Age, and we would not yet have taken a step toward civilization and peaceful and productive cooperation. A sign of maturity and growth is to overcome the dead past and old-fashioned, irrational and counterproductive traditions in favor of a mature, responsible attitude that brings peace, security and prosperity for all (as much as possible). 
Unfortunately, this backward mentality and the attitude of underestimating the problem will bring more catastrophes in the U.S. in the near future, Heaven grant that I'm wrong... 
Then, If I think about the behavior of the new generations, I'm even more pessimistic...


----------



## AleronIves (May 28, 2022)

Hanafuda said:


> The metal detectors could be built as the frame of the entrance door. Less obtrusive, less possible to evade too. Doesn't have to be a stand-alone apparatus like we're used to seeing at airports, courthouses.


Maybe they can add barbed wire, guard towers, and attack dogs while they're at it. Welcome to the first day of school, kids!



Nikokaro said:


> That this situation is indirectly due to the constitution and the difficulty of modifying it is absurd: it was created to protect individuals, and instead, becoming almost untouchable and unchangeable, paradoxically threatens their safety and rights.


It's not that the requirements for changing the Constitution are too strict. It's that the US is so divided now it can't agree on anything. The US system was specifically designed to require compromise and to operate on consensus only. When politicians spend all their time calling the other side evil and seeing compromise as a loss of moral purity, it's impossible to get anything done.



Nikokaro said:


> Are you serious or are you exaggerating? If so, it is blatant nonsense! Welp, americans, who understands them !?!


He's making a joke about this particular shooting. The police stood around and did nothing for an hour instead of going into the school and killing the shooter. This was the normal thing to do 20 years ago, but most police departments now send officers into the school immediately, rather than waiting for SWAT to arrive. It's not clear yet why the police waited so long.


----------



## SG854 (May 28, 2022)

Snip


----------



## stanleyopar2000 (May 28, 2022)

I'm not left enough that I believe AR's or guns as a whole should be banned...I feel that anyone should be able to own guns......except those with criminal tendencies (domestic violence etc) concerning mental health issues or violent felonies. I think even individuals who have been prescribed anti-depressants or anti-psychotics should not be allowed. 

This is what Red Flag laws would do, and the GQP is stonewalling any progress while parents are picking coffins. Sure, you can always acquire weapons illegally...but these laws are a *deterrent *to make obtaining these weapons of destruction are harder and not as easy.

Some are even going to the NRA convention THE SAME WEEK, with no shame and spouting the same thoughts and prayers "heartbroken" NRA scripted tweets while they get paid under the table to ensure that nothing changes.


----------



## Hanafuda (May 28, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> Maybe they can add barbed wire, guard towers, and attack dogs while they're at it. Welcome to the first day of school, kids!




Any kid who's been through an airport or into a government building has already experienced it. (security at entrance and metal detector, not your hyperbolic bs.) Even the public library in my (not big) town has it.




Nikokaro said:


> Apparently in Texas (and perhaps elsewhere) guns are easily found in some supermarkets, accessible even to kids.



Source/proof.


----------



## LoggerMan (May 28, 2022)

America should do an experiment, strict gun control in every state except Texas. Let's keep letting people get easy access to AR style weapons in Texas then after a few years compare how many school shootings Texas has compared to the rest of the states. You have to remember most of these school shooters are using legally acquired guns, these teenagers behind the sprees aren't going to the black market to pick up their guns and ammo. That embers ghost waifu guy bought his shotgun shells online, they delivered them in a big box, he couldn't believe how easy it was.


----------



## Nikokaro (May 28, 2022)

Hanafuda said:


> [about guns at the supermarket] Source/proof.


Is this perhaps a question?
On our news, an Italian reporter went to buy a rifle for her son at a supermarket in Texas, and the clerk explained to her how it works, that it is easy to use, smiling with satisfaction.
Will it be true? Will it be exaggerated? Will it be the usual journalistic sunt? Who knows?!?...


----------



## Stealphie (May 28, 2022)

Mental health's obviously an issue here, but like, a kid with issues being able to get guns that easily? That's a fucking problem.



Stealphie said:


> Mental health's obviously an issue here, but like, a kid with issues being able to get guns that easily? That's a fucking problem.


If you think "muh freedom" is more important than these tragedies then I don't know what to say, except, what the fuck.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 28, 2022)

Stealphie said:


> If you think "muh freedom" is more important than these tragedies then I don't know what to say, except, what the fuck.


It's worse. Some people here think that restricting guns will make Murica a "3rd world country, you know, like Europe, Canada and everyone else"


----------



## KennyAtom (May 28, 2022)

This entire thread reminds me of this comic.


----------



## Cortador (May 28, 2022)

MariArch said:


> (just to note, the person that shot the shooter was a random passerby border agent that happened to be in the area, but I digress)
> 
> The solution to this is a vast overhaul of security in schools. It should piss people off that these politicians have the gall to have giant security clientele for their rat asses and can ship billions of our dollars overseas to the Ukraine, but they can't spend any money to protect our children in schools.
> 
> ...



They try to increase budget for schools but any attempt is blocked by Republicans .


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 28, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> View attachment 311669
> This entire thread reminds me of this comic.


Except that police department has one of the highest budgets of all, so you failed once again.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 28, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Except that police department has one of the highest budgets of all, so you failed once again.


Except what you just said wasn't the point, the point was why punish us all for what one mentally ill loner did?


----------



## tabzer (May 28, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> He's making a joke about this particular shooting. The police stood around and did nothing for an hour instead of going into the school and killing the shooter. This was the normal thing to do 20 years ago, but most police departments now send officers into the school immediately, rather than waiting for SWAT to arrive. It's not clear yet why the police waited so long.



It wasn't a joke.  It was sarcastic comment about the "joke".

The police did interfere and prevented potentially life-saving measures.  It may have been better if they didn't show up.


----------



## JuanBaNaNa (May 28, 2022)

Let's revive this thread. @Nikokaro *nothing personal dude.*




White kid with gun: Yay! High Five Maverick!
Latino with gun: He$ MeNtAllY iLL wE dOnT nEEd tO bAn GunS...

And this is why I don't care about anything that might happen in the highly hypocrite land of the free called America.

But hey, it's just me being me.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 28, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> Except what you just said wasn't the point, the point was why punish us all for what one mentally ill loner did?


Because it's one mentally ill loner PER DAY or so. And because american Freudian phallocentric obsession with gun has brought nothing but misery and tragedy to the US. As Reagan said, no reason at all to walk around armed in the present day.

Grow a pair and stop letting children die for your obsessions.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 28, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Because it's one mentally ill loner PER DAY or so. And because american Freudian phallocentric obsession with gun has brought nothing but misery and tragedy to the US. As Reagan said, no reason at all to walk around armed in the present day.


I agree, no reason to WALK around armed. We should still be able to drive around armed, and keep our houses armed.



Dark_Ansem said:


> Grow a pair and stop letting children die for your obsessions.


Yes, because it's completely my fault that children are dying just because I like guns. Not a logical fallacy at all.


----------



## CMDreamer (May 28, 2022)

Politicians don't care about people, but their own businesses. They get paid for approving laws that allow gun makers to keep providing citizens means of "protecting" themselves against others, but they will never ever will provide any mean to protect them against themselves, that's not just a matter about having guns at hand or easily obtainable, but about wrong cultural values, wrong educational systems, and mind washing discourses where each and every time "America" can kill everything that get's in their way and they don't take any responsability on the matter.

This issue has walked a very, very long way from it's roots, and US politicians don't have a FI about how to solve it.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 29, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> Yes, because it's completely my fault that children are dying just because I like guns. Not a logical fallacy at all.


It's a metaphorical "you".


----------



## KennyAtom (May 29, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> It's a metaphorical "you".


now what in tarnation is a meta-phor acial?

also if you're trying to blame me, you're just using dead kids graves to push your agenda. shame on you.

now lookie here fellas, this argument has no easy answer.

you guys always say, "Oh, but Kenny (or some other american, idk)! It would be easy to get rid of guns! Pass a law or something, remove a literal constitutional right!" But fellas, it would not be that easy, 75% of states would have to ratify it. But trust me fellas, you can't even get 45% of states to agree to stimulus, 75% won't even ratify a constitutional amendment.

Also our media pushes guns hard. For example.

Woke Up This Morning by Alabama 3.



> You woke up this morning
> Got yourself a *gun*



Call of Duty, Battlefield, Sniper Elite, all push guns hard and make them look cool.

Hell, even movies and tv shows aren't innocent of this.

Family Guy makes guns look like toys, and there are multiple movies I can name that make guns look cool (James Bond, Jon Wick, Matrix).

The point is, we are such a gun culture that most people won't agree to the gun control situation, and unfortunately, we are stuck in this situation forever. It's just the way society is, and unless a gun control country takes our country over, we won't do a darn tootin thing about it, fellas.


----------



## JuanBaNaNa (May 29, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> now lookie here fellas, this argument has no easy answer.
> 
> you guys always say, "Oh, but Kenny (or some other american, idk)! It would be easy to get rid of guns! Pass a law or something, remove a literal constitutional right!" But fellas, it would not be that easy, 75% of states would have to ratify it. But trust me fellas, you can't even get 45% of states to agree to stimulus, 75% won't even ratify a constitutional amendment.
> 
> ...


You're basically saying: "I can't because I've been brainwashed by media that is stronger than my common sense"

Haha. Typical American.





*Fixed typo


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 29, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> now what in tarnation is a meta-phor acial?
> 
> also if you're trying to blame me, you're just using dead kids graves to push your agenda. shame on you.


Why are you so obviously trolling.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (May 29, 2022)

Guns don´t just look cool, they are. They can defend the defenceless, be it smaller countries or weaker people.

In order to prevent school shootings, you just need a guarded single entry to a school. And a metal detector is not a bad idea either. Americans are guarding hundreds of bases around the world but the cannot guard their own border or schools. A true rule of the people...


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 29, 2022)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> In order to prevent school shootings, you just need a guarded single entry to a school. And a metal detector is not a bad idea either. Americans are guarding hundreds of bases around the world but the cannot guard their own border or schools. A true rule of the people...


They already exist and don't work.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 29, 2022)

JuanBaNaNa said:


> You're basically saying: "I cunt because I've been brainwashed by media that is stronger than my common sense"
> 
> Haha. Typical American.


wait so I'm a cunt for just explaining why people probably won't go for gun control?


Dark_Ansem said:


> Why are you so obviously trolling.


Look, I was drunk when I wrote that, I'm sorry for drinking. Doesn't mean I'm a troll, unless you're so unfortunately set in your ways that you think any dissenters are trolls.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 29, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> wait so I'm a cunt for just explaining why people probably won't go for gun control?


You know, if you were raised in a normal family, you'd know that some things need to happen whether people want them or not. I'm sure your parents, no matter how strongly you wanted to touch fire, always stopped you from doing so. 
Look at what President Eisenhower did when the American public gave that shameful answer to his racial integration in schools referendums: Muricans actually said "NO" and he (rightly) shamed all of them naysayers for being unrepentant evil racists, and did so anyway.

Politicians forgot that they're in office to do their job, which is SERVING the community. Even if means not getting re-elected. Which, frankly, is the best argument for imposing term limits on every political position: stop this crazy idea of people being taxpayer-funded for their entire life, and using political jobs as career trampolines. Throughout the world, not just in the US, we need to return to politics being a SERVICE, not a SELF-SERVICE.


----------



## JuanBaNaNa (May 29, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> wait so I'm a cunt for just explaining why people probably won't go for gun control?


Oh my, that was  a typo...
But you do you


----------



## KennyAtom (May 29, 2022)

JuanBaNaNa said:


> Oh my, that was  a typo...
> But you do you


I mean, it's hard to take something saying "yer cunt because you explain why people won't go for gun control" any other way than they think i'm a cunt for explaining why people won't go for gun control.



Dark_Ansem said:


> You know, if you were raised in a normal family, you'd know that some things need to happen whether people want them or not. I'm sure your parents, no matter how strongly you wanted to touch fire, always stopped you from doing so.


Now insulting my family because of what I believe.

I'll be honest, my family are hardcore democrats, I was actually kicked out a few years back for being conservative. So despite what you think, they didn't teach me this way, the internet taught me this way. Leave them out of this anyway, this is between you and me and they shouldn't be dragged into this mess because you're running out of ammo.


Dark_Ansem said:


> Look at what President Eisenhower did when the American public gave that shameful answer to his racial integration in schools referendums: Muricans actually said "NO" and he (rightly) shamed all of them naysayers for being unrepentant evil racists, and did so anyway.


Racism and guns are completely different, one is taking away the rights of a group of people for their skin color, the other is shooty shooty bang bang pew pew. They aren't the same at all.


Dark_Ansem said:


> Politicians forgot that they're in office to do their job, which is SERVING the community. Even if means not getting re-elected. Which, frankly, is the best argument for imposing term limits on every political position: stop this crazy idea of people being taxpayer-funded for their entire life, and using political jobs as career trampolines. Throughout the world, not just in the US, we need to return to politics being a SERVICE, not a SELF-SERVICE.


Only thing I agree with, we need term limits, it shouldn't be a cushy job for the rest of your life.


----------



## JuanBaNaNa (May 29, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> I mean, it's hard to take something saying "yer cunt because you explain why people won't go for gun control" any other way than they think i'm a cunt for explaining why people won't go for gun control.


Yeah... about this... I actually haven't read anything you wrote before.
What makes you think I actually give a fuck about what you or anyone here that is pro-gun thinks?


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 29, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> Now insulting my family because of what I believe.


Not at all. Reading issues, much?


KennyAtom said:


> I'll be honest, my family are hardcore democrats, I was actually kicked out a few years back for being conservative.


Clear incompatibilities.


KennyAtom said:


> Leave them out of this anyway,


I did.


KennyAtom said:


> Racism and guns are completely different, one is taking away the rights of a group of people for their skin color, the other is shooty shooty bang bang pew pew. They aren't the same at all.


The matter of what's right however, is not.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 29, 2022)

JuanBaNaNa said:


> Yeah... about this... I actually haven't read anything you wrote before.
> What makes you think I actually give a fuck about what you or anyone here that is pro-gun thinks?


Actually, good point. I don't give a flying fuck about what anti gun activists believe, I know deep down that this issue won't change, and that I'm most likely right here.



Dark_Ansem said:


> Not at all. Reading issues, much?





Dark_Ansem said:


> You know, if you were raised in a *normal* family


Huh.


Dark_Ansem said:


> Clear incompatibilities.


Yeah, probably. I still visit them, but I avoid talking politics anymore. Irony was this all started because they asked me if I'd vote for trump for the 2020 election and I said yes. (This was before the attempted takeover.)


Dark_Ansem said:


> I did.


Again


Dark_Ansem said:


> You know, if you were raised in a normal family


Seems like you didn't, good sire.


Dark_Ansem said:


> The matter of what's right however, is not.


Not exactly, racism was and will always be bad, guns aren't bad at all, and should not be banned because of a few select incidents.


----------



## JuanBaNaNa (May 29, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> Actually, good point. I don't give a flying fuck about what anti gun activists believe, I know deep down that this issue won't change, and that I'm most likely right here.


Ah haha, omg. 
But yes you're right.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 29, 2022)

JuanBaNaNa said:


> Ah haha, omg.
> But yes you're right.


Honestly, I probably came off as a bit of a douchenozzle there, I'm sorry for the strong language.

I might disagree with anti gun activists, but I do enjoy debating and listening to their points as well, doesn't harm a soul, and I get new insight into their thought processes.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 29, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> Huh


I apologise if you took it badly, I meant genuinely that as "non-dysfunctional" or "hippy". You know, a standard one, where parents teach that you're not supposed to swallow bleach, no sugar after 5pm and "homework before telly".


KennyAtom said:


> Not exactly, racism was and will always be bad, guns aren't bad at all, and should not be banned because of a few select incidents.


There is nothing "few" nor "selected" about these incidents. The only year they stopped was the lockdown year. America has a gun violence issue which taints everything.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 29, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> I apologise if you took it badly, I meant genuinely that as "non-dysfunctional" or "hippy". You know, a standard one, where parents teach that you're not supposed to swallow bleach, no sugar after 5pm and "homework before telly".


Eh, that makes sense. 

Honestly they never really cared about what I did as long as they were left alone or i wasn't committing crimes.


Dark_Ansem said:


> There is nothing "few" nor "selected" about these incidents. The only year they stopped was the lockdown year. America has a gun violence issue which taints everything.


Add armed security guards, problem solved for 99% of these incidents.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 29, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> Add armed security guards, problem solved for 99% of these incidents.


Nonsense, and it shows.


KennyAtom said:


> Honestly they never really cared about what I did as long as they were left alone or i wasn't committing crimes.


I suppose that's a parenting style.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 29, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Nonsense, and it shows.


Please explain how it is nonsense.



Dark_Ansem said:


> I suppose that's a parenting style.


Yeah, I suppose it is. Don't care about your kids, then get angry when they believe different stuff than you.

Honestly I committed a few crimes as well, but they never harmed anyone else. (Weed, underage drinking). Never hurt anymore, and hey, what they didn't know wouldn't have hurt them.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 29, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> Please explain how it is nonsense.


Police waiting 2 hours. And we're talking about THE police, not a private force.


KennyAtom said:


> Honestly I committed a few crimes as well, but they never harmed anyone else. (Weed, underage drinking). Never hurt anymore, and hey, what they didn't know wouldn't have hurt them.


I agree, not all crimes are equal but "crime" is a word with too much emotional baggage.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 29, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Police waiting 2 hours. And we're talking about THE police, not a private force.


Ah, that explains it. I meant like 2 or 3 officers equipped with guns.


Dark_Ansem said:


> I agree, not all crimes are equal but "crime" is a word with too much emotional baggage.


Yeah, i'd say more like a felony and a misdemeanor.


----------



## tabzer (May 29, 2022)

In this particular situation, it might have been helpful if they shut the door.  Might have redirected the guy to the nearest farm or petting zoo instead.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 29, 2022)

Yes of course, there's no such thing as breaking down a door, innit.


----------



## tabzer (May 29, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Yes of course, there's no such thing as breaking down a door, innit.



Seems like it would have been too much effort and risk.  Shattering glass is almost as scary as people who can defend themselves.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 29, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Seems like it would have been too much effort and risk.  Shattering glass is almost as scary as people who can defend themselves.


Is this about the policemen themselves?


----------



## tabzer (May 29, 2022)

I thought the teacher who reported seeing the guy with a gun left the door open.  Imagine a teacher saving the police the trouble.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 29, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Imagine a teacher saving the police the trouble.


We don't need to, the teacher did the job of the policemen.


----------



## tabzer (May 29, 2022)

Except for the one teacher leaving the door wide open for a guy with a gun, who they saw.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 29, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Except for the one teacher leaving the door wide open for a guy with a gun, who they saw.


And who died for the mistake.


----------



## tabzer (May 29, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> And who died for the mistake.


Did that teacher die?


----------



## NoobletCheese (May 29, 2022)

America has always had guns, but hasn't always had school shootings.   Canada has similar levels of gun ownership.


----------



## tabzer (May 29, 2022)

I really wish America would stop being mass murderers.  Maybe it starts with their foreign policy.  Of course, being on drugs doesn't help...  But from the perspective of nature vs nurture, why shouldn't the children of a government emulate their "parents"?  Is it really a stretch to suggest that the public education system is indoctrinating its young into passively accepting the way their government does business?


----------



## Hanafuda (May 29, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Yes of course, there's no such thing as breaking down a door, innit.




Go try breaking down a locked steel door at a public school. See how it goes.

Simple fact ... the unlocked door was the only reason he was able to get in. Lax security.


----------



## Creamu (May 30, 2022)

tabzer said:


> I really wish America would stop being mass murderers.  Maybe it starts with their foreign policy.  Of course, being on drugs doesn't help...  But from the perspective of nature vs nurture, why shouldn't the children of a government emulate their "parents"?  Is it really a stretch to suggest that the public education system is indoctrinating its young into passively accepting the way their government does business?


This.

Taking the guns away from americans (good luck with that), but keeping the trend of ever increasing nihilisim going.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 30, 2022)

To all the morons thinking that armed teachers would have prevented this: a fully trained team was too fearful to engage, do you honestly see the librarian and lunch lady defend the students with their pea shooters?


----------



## Creamu (May 30, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> To all the morons thinking that armed teachers would have prevented this: a fully trained team was too fearful to engage, do you honestly see the librarian and lunch lady defend the students with their pea shooters?


Are you suggesting a lady cant blow a nihilisitc maniac away?


----------



## Evan5935 (May 30, 2022)

Gun laws arent going to work.

Case and point: murder is illegal.


----------



## Hanafuda (May 30, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> To all the morons thinking that armed teachers would have prevented this: a fully trained team was too fearful to engage, do you honestly see the librarian and lunch lady defend the students with their pea shooters?




Well, it wasn't a school, but it worked here:

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/police-woman-killed-man-fired-rifle-party-crowd-85002437



> CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- A woman in West Virginia fatally shot a man who began firing an AR-15-style rifle into a crowd of people that had gathered for a party, authorities said.
> 
> Dennis Butler, 37, was killed Wednesday night after he pulled out the rifle and began shooting at dozens of people attending the birthday-graduation party outside an apartment complex in the city of Charleston, police said in a statement.
> 
> ...


----------



## Valwinz (May 30, 2022)

So why was there no security and the door was open and why did the police stay outside while this person killed people?

Like when I was a kid there was security at my school the hell happened?

People are focusing on the wrong thing


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 30, 2022)

Hanafuda said:


> Well, it wasn't a school, but it worked here:
> 
> https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/police-woman-killed-man-fired-rifle-party-crowd-85002437


Una hirundo non facit ver.


----------



## Creamu (May 30, 2022)

Valwinz said:


> So why was there no security and the door was open and why did the police stay outside while this person killed people?
> 
> Like when I was a kid there was security at my school the hell happened?
> 
> People are focusing on the wrong thing


It might be because the presence of security in schools is oppressive to certain subsegments of the population?


----------



## Evan5935 (May 30, 2022)

Creamu said:


> It might be because the presence of security in schools is oppressive to certain subsegments of the population?


Well which is the preferrable? Security where sometimes a racist gets the job, or no security where sometimes students+staff get attacked and killed?

Id say the former overrules the latter


----------



## Creamu (May 30, 2022)

Evan5935 said:


> Well which is the preferrable? Security where sometimes a racist gets the job, or no security where sometimes students+staff get attacked and killed?
> 
> Id say the former overrules the latter


Unfortunatly you dont rule.


----------



## Hanafuda (May 30, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Una hirundo non facit ver.




That's what they say every time.


----------



## tabzer (May 30, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> To all the morons thinking that armed teachers would have prevented this: a fully trained team was too fearful to engage, do you honestly see the librarian and lunch lady defend the students with their pea shooters?


Are you suggesting that giving weapons to Ukraine is a stupid idea?

Or just Americans on the verge of war?


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 30, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Are you suggesting that giving weapons to Ukraine is a stupid idea?
> 
> Or just Americans on the verge of war?


I wasn't aware america was being invaded. Is it? By whom?


----------



## tabzer (May 30, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> I wasn't aware america was being invaded. Is it? By whom?


What?  America is being invaded?


----------



## Evan5935 (May 30, 2022)

Creamu said:


> Unfortunatly you dont rule.


And fortunately, you dont either. Otherwise you'd opt for kids to potentially experience getting their bodies riddled with bullets, over having them experience potential uncomfortability or racism (of which  both are over 90% survivable, and 1 is 100 percent survivable).


----------



## tabzer (May 30, 2022)

Evan5935 said:


> And fortunately, you dont either. Otherwise you'd opt for kids to potentially experience getting their bodies riddled with bullets, over having them experience potential uncomfortability or racism (of which  both are over 90% survivable, and 1 is 100 percent survivable).


I don't think he was disagreeing with you, lol.


----------



## Evan5935 (May 30, 2022)

tabzer said:


> I don't think he was disagreeing with you, lol.


Perhaps, eh? Text doesnt always tranlate over, and if expecting hostility, you can read hostility


----------



## Creamu (May 30, 2022)

Evan5935 said:


> And fortunately, you dont either. Otherwise you'd opt for kids to potentially experience getting their bodies riddled with bullets, over having them experience potential uncomfortability or racism (of which  both are over 90% survivable, and 1 is 100 percent survivable).


I didn't make the rules.



Dark_Ansem said:


> I wasn't aware america was being invaded. Is it? By whom?


----------



## Nothereed (May 30, 2022)

I take my mental health stance back. This is more of an issue of radicalization, and acting on it.


----------



## Creamu (May 30, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> I take my mental health stance back. This is more of an issue of radicalization, and acting on it.


These shootings seem to have been driven by nihilism and disorder rather than by people who believe in anything or even mental illness.


----------



## lokomelo (May 30, 2022)

so the gun debate became a door debate?


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 30, 2022)

Creamu said:


> disorder


Disorder of what.


----------



## Creamu (May 30, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Disorder of what.


Of civilisation.


----------



## tabzer (May 30, 2022)

lokomelo said:


> so the gun debate became a door debate?


If reasonable door control can save kids' lives, why not?


----------



## KennyAtom (May 30, 2022)

this meme is funny, but also true at the same time. they won't go home, they just see kids as an easy target since there's no one with a gun to protect them.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 30, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> View attachment 311947
> 
> this meme is funny, but also true at the same time. they won't go home, they just see kids as an easy target since there's no one with a gun to protect them.


There was a whole police squadron who was crapping in their pants. More guns are obviously not the answer.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 30, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> There was a whole police squadron who was crapping in their pants. More guns are obviously not the answer.


or.... maybe.... we need to get rid of that police force and actually get people in who will, idk, DO THEIR JOBS.


----------



## Creamu (May 30, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> There was a whole police squadron who was crapping in their pants. More guns are obviously not the answer.


Maybe more testosterone?


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 30, 2022)

Creamu said:


> Maybe more testosterone?


what?


----------



## Creamu (May 30, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> what?


Maybe if the police were into the habbit of eating raw bulltesticle and rubbing their private parts with vitamin D3 oil, as well as eating loads of tartar they would have been braver.


----------



## Hanafuda (May 30, 2022)

Creamu said:


> .... rubbing their private parts with vitamin D3 oil ....




Does that work?!? I've been getting by on just the bull testicles until now, but I'm up for anything that'll, you know ... give me an edge.


----------



## Creamu (May 30, 2022)

Hanafuda said:


> Does that work?!? I've been getting by on just the bull testicles until now, but I'm up for anything that'll, you know ... give me an edge.


If you sunbath with your testicles exposed, that is even better. Putting the suppliment on that part is also quite effective though. Eat beef for the B vitamins and zink. Do excercise routines that promote testosterone. Also if you have eyecontact and conversation with the opposite sex it boosts testosterone as well.


----------



## tabzer (May 30, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> what?


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 31, 2022)

You two are insane if you think TRT has any role in this debacle.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 31, 2022)

Look, I'll be completely honest. 

So apparently if we ban abortion then they'll just do it illegally, but if we ban guns, everyone will instantly stop, turn in their guns, and not do anything illegal?

What I think is people will commit crimes if both things are banned.


----------



## tabzer (May 31, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> You two are insane if you think TRT has any role in this debacle.


That's the point.  It really did not.


----------



## Creamu (May 31, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> You two are insane if you think TRT has any role in this debacle.


Testosterone is linked to traits that would contribute to the police disobeying order/protocol as well as overcoming their fear to confront the shooter.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 31, 2022)

Creamu said:


> Testosterone is linked to traits that would contribute to the police disobeying order/protocol as well as overcoming their fear to confront the shooter.


it also linked to aggression and sexual desire what, they'd gangbang assailants now?



KennyAtom said:


> So apparently if we ban abortion then they'll just do it illegally, but if we ban guns, everyone will instantly stop, turn in their guns, and not do anything illegal?


most illegal guns start circulating as legal ones.


----------



## Creamu (May 31, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> it also linked to aggression and sexual desire what, they'd gangbang assailants now?


If it is evolutionary benefitial and more high T persons are around in the future, it has potential to work in the long run.

Try stopping a mass shooter without aggression.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 31, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> most illegal guns start circulating as legal ones.


then what would you do once guns are illegal?

Go to every house that is listed as owning a gun and force them to give up their guns with deadly force? 

The point is people can literally just get illegal guns easily, just like abortion, it will never disappear, it'll just go to the back alleys.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 31, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> then what would you do once guns are illegal?
> 
> Go to every house that is listed as owning a gun and force them to give up their guns with deadly force?
> 
> The point is people can literally just get illegal guns easily, just like abortion, it will never disappear, it'll just go to the back alleys.


Yes yes and this is all very pretty and all except that gun control works everywhere. Only one place has stubbornly refused to implement it. The US.


----------



## Creamu (May 31, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Yes yes and this is all very pretty and all except that gun control works everywhere. Only one place has stubbornly refused to implement it. The US.


In sweden you have attacks on civil housing with fully automatic machine guns and grenades.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 31, 2022)

Creamu said:


> In sweden you have attacks on civil housing with fully automatic machine guns and grenades.


For real or this is more of your conspiracy theorism talking? Because a quick google shows 0 results for incidents that should be front page of any newspaper.


----------



## Creamu (May 31, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> For real or this is more of your conspiracy theorism talking?


Read up on the definition of conspiracy and theory. You will find out that these are words that have actual meaning.


Dark_Ansem said:


> Because a quick google shows 0 results for incidents that should be front page of any newspaper.


There you go
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_grenade_attacks_in_Sweden


Dark_Ansem said:


>


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (May 31, 2022)

drugs are illegal, I guess theres no drug addicts huh?


----------



## KennyAtom (May 31, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Yes yes and this is all very pretty and all except that gun control works everywhere. Only one place has stubbornly refused to implement it. The US.


Alright, time to kill all the women attempting to abort with deadly force.

Clearly we'll be able to control abortions with shooting them all, and they will all disappear. No, they won't go into illegal areas to do so, are you fucking crazy? It will be all hunky dory and no one will abort again!

Seriously this argument is stupid, of course women will abort in the back alleys, just like how criminals will buy guns from the back alleys. Being able to buy guns legally helps lead to those criminals since there's records of them, making guns illegal just makes it harder to track criminals since hey, there's no gun record!


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 31, 2022)

Creamu said:


> Read up on the definition of conspiracy and theory. You will find out that these are words that have actual meaning.
> 
> There you go
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_grenade_attacks_in_Sweden


Stopped in 2018 dude, we're in 2022, and these are episodes from organised crime.

And I know what I said, like when you were talking nonsense about "Jews and Gay Flags rising throughout the world".



KennyAtom said:


> Seriously this argument is stupid, of course women will abort in the back alleys, just like how criminals will buy guns from the back alleys. Being able to buy guns legally helps lead to those criminals since there's records of them, making guns illegal just makes it harder to track criminals since hey, there's no gun record!


The argument is stupid because, just like you said about Eisenhower, these are different things. More guns can't fix gun issues, end of. I appreciate your feelings are hurt, but that's what it is. Clearly, you are a pro-birth who couldn't care less about kids once they're delivered from the wound, and in fact would rather see them dead 10 years later than accept US society has an issue.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 31, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> The argument is stupid because, just like you said about Eisenhower, these are different things. More guns can't fix gun issues, end of. I appreciate your feelings are hurt, but that's what it is. Clearly, you are a pro-birth who couldn't care less about kids once they're delivered from the wound, and in fact would rather see them dead 10 years later than accept US society has an issue.


Irony is I wasn't comparing abortion and guns itself, I was comparing how making them illegal won't make them go away, especially for guns.

But do go off and assume my feelings I guess.

look, I'll be completely honest.

the moment they come for my guns, is the moment I lost them in a boating accident.

Sorry coppers, they're gone, what are you really going to do about it? I lost them and the law that would get me in trouble for it (you have to report lost firearms within 48 hours, I'll say i lost them 15 years ago, since statue of limitations) is past the statue of limitations, so you cannot arrest me for it.


what they don't know is that I'm lying, something the democrats know well! they'll never take my fucking guns, no matter how hard they try since that'd literally be breaking the constitution. My freedoms are protected, and other than breaking an unjust law, no one was hurt!


----------



## smf (May 31, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> Go to every house that is listed as owning a gun and force them to give up their guns with deadly force?
> 
> The point is people can literally just get illegal guns easily, just like abortion, it will never disappear, it'll just go to the back alleys.


New Zealand did a buy back of assault weapons.

Once you make guns illegal & prosecute people severely for having illegal guns then gun crime reduces considerably.

While gangs/mafia etc might be able to get a gun, they won't use it unless necessary because of drawing attention to themselves.

Idiot 18 year olds are unlikely to have underworld contacts that can buy guns.

"Good guy with a gun" clearly doesn't work. No background checks clearly doesn't work.

Yet the gun lobby are able to use their wealth to keep children being killed.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (May 31, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> look, I'll be completely honest.
> 
> the moment they come for my guns, is the moment I lost them in a boating accident.
> 
> ...


The Chad 2nd amendment gun owner vs the ****** gun grabber

"Cops are bad & killers". Same exact person: "Only cops should have guns."



smf said:


> New Zealand did a buy back of assault weapons.
> 
> Once you make guns illegal & prosecute people severely for having illegal guns then gun crime reduces considerably.
> 
> ...


Was it NZ or Australia where some man was building functioning guns out of old bits of scrap metal and then handing them in for like $1000 each in that buy back program exploiting it? 

Legend!


----------



## smf (May 31, 2022)

Creamu said:


> In sweden you have attacks on civil housing with fully automatic machine guns and grenades.



Grenades seems to have been a legal loophole that was exploited by organised criminals

https://www.euronews.com/2018/04/10/sweden-has-a-problem-with-hand-grenades-and-here-s-why



Purple_Shyguy said:


> Was it NZ or Australia where some man was building functioning guns out of old bits of scrap metal and then handing them in for like $1000 each in that buy back program exploiting it?
> 
> Legend!


I didn't hear about that and can't verify it.

Australia had a buy back scheme too

https://www.politifact.com/factchec...al-post-isnt-correct-australias-gun-laws-vio/

_The post inaccurately__ says that one year after the buyback, homicides went up 6.2%, assaults went up 9.6% and armed robberies went up 44%. It also says that, in the state of Victoria, homicides with firearms increased 300%.

What really happened is homicides declined about 9% to 333 in 1998 compared with a year prior, according to the Australian Institute of Criminology.  _

The Australian Bureau of Statistics reported that armed robberies increased by 20% (not 44%), but the number involving firearms decreased to a six-year low of 19%.


What I don't understand is that we know getting rid of guns actually improves your chance of survival, yet the US can't even introduce back ground checks (even though the majority of people are in favor of them)


----------



## tabzer (May 31, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> For real or this is more of your conspiracy theorism talking? Because a quick google shows 0 results for incidents that should be front page of any newspaper.


How does The Onion relate to Bart being shamefully singled out?  Couldn't you have just posted one of the Onion's articles directly?  What's the intended effect of slapping the Onion on a Simpson's meme template?


----------



## smf (May 31, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> I'll say i lost them 15 years ago, since statue of limitations) is past the statue of limitations, so you cannot arrest me for it.
> 
> 
> what they don't know is that I'm lying, something the democrats know well! they'll never take my fucking guns, no matter how hard they try since that'd literally be breaking the constitution. My freedoms are protected, and other than breaking an unjust law, no one was hurt!


I think you mean statute of limitations.

I don't think they are so dumb to believe your lies. Instead, a search warrant would be issued and your property torn down looking for them.

Constitution is just something written by people, it can be changed. I guess if they introduce mental health checks, then by your posts you really ought to not be allowed guns.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 31, 2022)

smf said:


> I think you mean statute of limitations.
> 
> I don't think they are so dumb to believe your lies. Instead, a search warrant would be issued and your property torn down looking for them.
> 
> Constitution is just something written by people, it can be changed. I guess if they introduce mental health checks, then by your posts you really ought to not be allowed guns.


you do realize there's an outside storage I could use as well, right? It's not like I'm going to be as stupid as to keep them in places where they're allowed to search.

Also nice, uhh, what do the liberals say again? Oh yeah, mental health-ism. You are being mean towards people with minor mental health defects, therefore you are mental health-ist. (Just like racism and being racist except with people with minor mental health defects.)


----------



## smf (May 31, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> drugs are illegal, I guess theres no drug addicts huh?


Nobody said that making something illegal will get rid of it entirely.

But some places have legalized marijuana, certainly there is more marijuana available in those places than before.

If having something legalized made no difference, then why would people fight for drugs to be legalized?

If getting rid of guns cuts the killings by 99%, then why wouldn't you get rid of guns?


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (May 31, 2022)

smf said:


> "Good guy with a gun" clearly doesn't work.


This is really dishonest to say. What because nobody showed up to stop this latest particular killing at the school this time theres no good guys with guns? You do know that these people that want to massacre people literally choose areas to attack that they know specifically there will be little to no chance there will have anyone with a gun to stop them?

On average yearly after you remove suicides and accidental death theres about 15,000 firearm homicides in america. 
about 4000-5000 of those on average are self defence. So anyone defending their lives or the loved ones lives with lethal force from immediate threat of death are literally "good guys with guns". Also theres about 1,000 lethal use of force by cops every year and 99.9% of those are completely justified so again, more good guys with guns.

About 5k-8k on average which is about 35%-40% of gun deaths are good guys with guns.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 31, 2022)

smf said:


> But some places have legalized marijuana, certainly there is more marijuana available in those places than before.


I've been able to get weed back when it was illegal really easily. There was quite literally no shortage of weed, illegal or legal.


smf said:


> If having something legalized made no difference, then why would people fight for drugs to be legalized?


Because they didn't want to go to jail for years just because they had a gram of pot on them.


smf said:


> If getting rid of guns cuts the killings by 99%, then why wouldn't you get rid of guns?


I agree, it would cut gun related killings by 99%. Other killings would go up tenfold.


----------



## smf (May 31, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> Other killings would go up tenfold.



You can work on that too. In the UK you can be prosecuted for carrying a large knife in public in the UK. A valid excuse would be taking a kitchen knife home from a store in sealed plastic packaging.

In the US there were 7.8 homicides per 100,000 in 2020
In the UK there were 9.9 homicides per 1,000,000 in 2020/2021

Weapons don't make it safer.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 31, 2022)

smf said:


> No, they wouldn't.
> 
> You can be prosecuted for carrying a large knife in public in the UK. A valid excuse would be taking a kitchen knife home from a store in sealed plastic packaging.


Yes, they would.

They had to fine tune laws before those killings went down.

Also it's significantly easier to go on a mass killing with a car then with a gun, where is the car ban????!?


----------



## lokomelo (May 31, 2022)

I'm little late here, but I loved how a cat trolled both sides of this debate during, like, 3 pages with testosterone


----------



## Creamu (May 31, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Stopped in 2018 dude, we're in 2022, and these are episodes from organised crime.


Great argument for taking guns off americans hands. It won't work stuff like the 66.000.000 genocided under the bolshevik regime won't be forgotten. The american will be wise enough to keep their guns. No one will be able to take them.







Dark_Ansem said:


> And I know what I said, like when you were talking nonsense about "Jews and Gay Flags rising throughout the world".


Quote please.


----------



## smf (May 31, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> This is really dishonest to say. What because nobody showed up to stop this latest particular killing at the school this time theres no good guys with guns?


You're being dishonest.

I'm saying "good guys with guns" doesn't work, not that there are no good guys with guns.


----------



## budDRY (May 31, 2022)

"easy access to guns"


i know your post was altered. what was the original title?

"easy access to guns"
legal or illegal?
going to a gun store and deal with steps to obtain a gun
OR
going down an alley and paying cash no questions asked?


----------



## smf (May 31, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> Also it's significantly easier to go on a mass killing with a car then with a gun, where is the car ban????!?


No, it's not. If going on a mass killing spree with a car was easier, then that is what mass killers would use.

An assault weapon is much easier to go on a killing spree, your range and maneuverability is much easier than a car.

With a car, you could only kill people directly in front or behind. Reversing over a lot of people is pretty difficult, so you're mostly limited to what is directly in front and people can jump out of the way.

With a gun you can shoot people in 360 degrees up to a mile away. Just stand on the spot and rotate round. If they move to the left or right, then you can quickly track them


----------



## KennyAtom (May 31, 2022)

smf said:


> No, it's not. If going on a mass killing spree with a car was easier, then that is what mass killers would use.


It's the next easiest thing.

Think about it, you won't have to aim anymore, and if they took away guns, they can't shoot you and end your reign of terror. It's not as easy as guns, but it's easy.

Also, I dare you to take my guns. Go ahead and try, I'm not losing these babies. (Already spent over 4, 5k on guns so far, planning to amass a huge collection just as an fuck you to the libs)


----------



## budDRY (May 31, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> drugs are illegal, I guess theres no drug addicts huh?


speaking of drugs
why is Biden legally giving crack and crack pipes


----------



## smf (May 31, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> So anyone defending their lives or the loved ones lives with lethal force from immediate threat of death are literally "good guys with guns".


Which they wouldn't have to do, if thieves didn't have to carry guns to protect themselves from home owners with guns.

It doesn't work.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (May 31, 2022)

smf said:


> You're being dishonest.
> 
> I'm saying "good guys with guns" doesn't work, not that there are no good guys with guns.


whats the difference?



smf said:


> Which they wouldn't have to do, if thieves didn't have to carry guns to protect themselves from home owners with guns.
> 
> It doesn't work.


Oh your trolling. Got it.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 31, 2022)

smf said:


> Which they wouldn't have to do, if thieves didn't have to carry guns to protect themselves from home owners with guns.
> 
> It doesn't work.


i mean, the moment you break into someone's house, you should have to waive your safety.

I don't know if you're coming to rape my family and kill me or just stealing some stuff, so either way you should be shot and killed. Basically, think of it as gambling and losing.


----------



## smf (May 31, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> Oh your trolling. Got it.


No, just pointing out clear evidence why gun crime is so high in the US and so low elsewhere

Your guns don't protect you.



KennyAtom said:


> i mean, the moment you break into someone's house, you should have to waive your safety.


Good luck telling them that.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 31, 2022)

smf said:


> Good luck telling them that.


I won't have to tell them, I'll just shoot them.

Hey, I don't know what your intent is, all I know is you're threatening my safety, and you have to go.


----------



## budDRY (May 31, 2022)

smf said:


> No, it's not. If going on a mass killing spree with a car was easier, then that is what mass killers would use.
> 
> An assault weapon is much easier to go on a killing spree, your range and maneuverability is much easier than a car.
> 
> ...


i like how this person jumps from assault weapon then to guns

next is my body my choice?


----------



## smf (May 31, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> I won't have to tell them, I'll just shoot them.
> 
> Hey, I don't know what your intent is, all I know is you're threatening my safety, and you have to go.


You won't get the chance, knowing that you have a gun they will be prepared to kill you first.

I'd use gas.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 31, 2022)

smf said:


> You won't get the chance, knowing that you have a gun they will be prepared to kill you first.


If they have something like a knife, nah they're dead.

If they have a gun, then i'm willing to sacrifice my safety for my families.

also that's ignoring that I won't plaster the fact that I own a gun on my house, so they won't come prepared with a gun


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (May 31, 2022)

smf said:


> No, just pointing out clear evidence why gun crime is so high in the US and so low elsewhere
> 
> Your guns don't protect you.


No you HAVE to be trolling. Nobody could be so big brained to say that home invaders would stop carrying guns if guns were illegal. Thats the hottest 2000IQ take ever.

And actually i literally told you how guns DO protect people. 4000+ people protect themselves yearly with lethal force. And thats not even taking to account the tens of thousands of crimes prevented from guns used as a deterrent. I read not long ago that on average 8000 sexual assaults and rapes are prevented by women with concealed firearms. PROTECTING themselves.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 31, 2022)

smf said:


> I'd use gas.


So they'd burn my house down just to take out one guy with a gun?

big brain logic.


----------



## tabzer (May 31, 2022)

smf said:


> Which they wouldn't have to do, if thieves didn't have to carry guns to protect themselves from home owners with guns



This is my favorite so far.


----------



## smf (May 31, 2022)

budDRY said:


> i like how this person jumps from assault weapon then to guns
> 
> next is my body my choice?


Aren't we talking about the assault rifles used in the texas massacre?



KennyAtom said:


> So they'd burn my house down just to take out one guy with a gun?
> 
> big brain logic.


Who said anything about burning?


----------



## KennyAtom (May 31, 2022)

smf said:


> Who said anything about burning?


idk man, that's what comes with gas.

gas burns houses down


----------



## smf (May 31, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> If they have something like a knife, nah they're dead.
> 
> If they have a gun, then i'm willing to sacrifice my safety for my families.


If you want to fight an arms race, someone will be willing to step it up a notch for you.



KennyAtom said:


> idk man, that's what comes with gas.
> 
> gas burns houses down


You seem to misunderstand what gas is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incapacitating_agent#Sleeping_gas


----------



## KennyAtom (May 31, 2022)

smf said:


> If you want to fight an arms race, someone will be willing to step it up a notch for you.


ok so I have to ask you something, why are you trying to make up situations where I'd die horribly defending my home? 

Kinda sick and twisted of you, man.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (May 31, 2022)

Where you memeing and trolling from the start or did you start becuase you are losing the argument?


----------



## budDRY (May 31, 2022)

smf said:


> Aren't we talking about the assault rifles used in the texas massacre?


access to guns

you from assault weapons to guns... now to assault rifles




KennyAtom said:


> ok so I have to ask you something, why are you trying to make up situations where I'd die horribly defending my home?
> 
> Kinda sick and twisted of you, man.


they feed on emotions


----------



## smf (May 31, 2022)

budDRY said:


> access to guns
> 
> you from assault weapons to guns... now to assault rifles


WTF are you going on about?

Assault rifles are guns.

Yeah, trolling I see.



KennyAtom said:


> ok so I have to ask you something, why are you trying to make up situations where I'd die horribly defending my home?
> 
> Kinda sick and twisted of you, man.


I'm pointing out how you are just making your home more dangerous by wanting everyone to have guns.

It's sick and twisted of you to require having guns in the first place.


----------



## budDRY (May 31, 2022)

smf said:


> WTF are you going on about?
> 
> Assault rifles are guns.
> 
> Yeah, trolling I see.


yes and you have difficulty understanding your own words


----------



## smf (May 31, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> Where you memeing and trolling from the start or did you start becuase you are losing the argument?


Losing the argument? The figures speak for themselves.

It's a shame that you want kids to die just to feed your obsession with guns.

Either you don't care, or you can't understand data.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 31, 2022)

smf said:


> I'm pointing out how you are just making your home more dangerous by wanting everyone to have guns.


What?


smf said:


> It's sick and twisted of you to require having guns in the first place.


idk man, I'm not the one coming up with horrible ways for someone to die just for owning guns.


----------



## smf (May 31, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> idk man, I'm not the one coming up with horrible ways for someone to die just for owning guns.


No, you're the one that is going to put your family at greater risk just so you can own a gun.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 31, 2022)

smf said:


> No, you're the one that is going to put your family at greater risk just so you can own a gun.


Trying to change the subject after being called out for being a genuine psychopath by making up horrible death scenarios for someone who just wanted to own a gun? I'll bite.

Why exactly would I put my family in greater danger by just owning a gun? It's not like criminals scan for gun owners just to murder their entire families, and with me owning a gun, we'll be statistically safer, as I can protect my and my families life.


----------



## lokomelo (May 31, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> Trying to change the subject after being called out for being a genuine psychopath by making up horrible death scenarios for someone who just wanted to own a gun? I'll bite.
> 
> Why exactly would I put my family in greater danger by just owning a gun? It's not like criminals scan for gun owners just to murder their entire families, and with me owning a gun, we'll be statistically safer, as I can protect my and my families life.


mind sharing those statistics?


----------



## KennyAtom (May 31, 2022)

lokomelo said:


> mind sharing those statistics?


Sure.

Debunkers Vs Gun Control Nonsense | FreedomToons
The Debunkers VS Gun Control BS
DEBUNKERS vs GUN CONTROL | FreedomToons

A few about how gun control isn't as good as they say it is.
Gun Control and Venezuela
THE GOOD GUY WITH A GUN: TOTAL MYTH I SWEAR!
Support Gun Control You Child Hating Bigot!!

and one extra
Government Good, Guns Bad! | FreedomToons

I have to go to work soon so I don't have time to research too much, but this guy links to studies and is overall pretty good for explanations.


----------



## lokomelo (May 31, 2022)

you sure inform yourself through youtube. I was expecting an university paper or something, but whatever, I was just curious, I have no horse in this race anyway.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 31, 2022)

The guy does link to sources in the description, so that's why I sent those clips.


----------



## Creamu (May 31, 2022)

lokomelo said:


> you sure inform yourself through youtube. I was expecting an university paper or something, but whatever, I was just curious, I have no horse in this race anyway.


To be honest, what truely matters is the truth. The believe university papers these days are source of authoritative  information more than any other source, might be easily changed by looking into the current state of universities. Only about 1% of scientists do serious scientific work.


----------



## lokomelo (May 31, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> The guy does link to sources in the description, so that's why I sent those clips.


first video has a link to some news, a list of states, a blank question book and a survey telling people's opinion, I'll not bother to go video by video, do you mind telling in witch video the statistics that houses with guns are safer are?


----------



## budDRY (May 31, 2022)

Creamu said:


> Great argument for taking guns off americans hands. It won't work stuff like the 66.000.000 genocided under the bolshevik regime won't be forgotten. The american will be wise enough to keep their guns. No one will be able to take them.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





lokomelo said:


> mind sharing those statistics?


does life experience count?



Creamu said:


> To be honest, what truely matters is the truth. The believe university papers these days are source of authoritative  information more than any other source, might be easily changed by looking into the current state of universities. Only about 1% of scientists do serious scientific work.


agree
for political reasons


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 31, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> what they don't know is that I'm lying, something the democrats know well! they'll never take my fucking guns, no matter how hard they try since that'd literally be breaking the constitution. My freedoms are protected, and other than breaking an unjust law, no one was hurt!


LOL you're drunk again, making no sense. Also, democrats lying? I'm sorry, your POTUS candidate has been harping for 2 years about how the "election" was stolen so pot, kettle...



tabzer said:


> How does The Onion relate to Bart being shamefully singled out?  Couldn't you have just posted one of the Onion's articles directly?  What's the intended effect of slapping the Onion on a Simpson's meme template?


Do you make a deliberate effort to be this dense, or are you naturally "ungifted"?


Creamu said:


> Quote please.


Check your own thread about Ukraine.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 31, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> LOL you're drunk again, making no sense. Also, democrats lying? I'm sorry, your POTUS candidate has been harping for 2 years about how the "election" was stolen so pot, kettle...


Stay mad that they can't take my guns.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 31, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> Stay mad that they can't take my guns.


First of all "stay mad", seriously? Are you that stupid?

Secondly, ad nauseam, no one is talking about taking your guns, laws don't work retroactively. Usually.



Creamu said:


> Great argument for taking guns off americans hands. It won't work stuff like the 66.000.000 genocided under the bolshevik regime won't be forgotten. The american will be wise enough to keep their guns. No one will be able to take them.


Yes, I'm sure all those organised crime individuals will cower in fear from private citizen weapons - NOT!


----------



## Creamu (May 31, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Check your own thread about Ukraine.


Haven't found anything about that. Weird connection.

We live in a world where Israel is genociding palestians. It's hard to look at that and take any argument from anyone who wants to take weapons out of the hand of your populus. I think it is impossible to take weapons out of the hands of americans. It's just not gonna happen.



Dark_Ansem said:


> Yes, I'm sure all those organised crime individuals will cower in fear from private citizen weapons - NOT!


You underestimate the americans, they have fought the british empire, and they know their history.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 31, 2022)

Creamu said:


> You underestimate the americans, they have fought the british empire, and they know their history.


Yeah, there isn't a single american who fought off the Brits alive today. Largely thugs and bullies nowadays.


Creamu said:


> We live in a world where Israel is genociding palestians. It's hard to look at that and take any argument from anyone who wants to take weapons out of the hand of your populus. I think it is impossible to take weapons out of the hands of americans. It's just not gonna happen.


Again, for the 100th times, laws don't work like that. We're talking about the future, not the past.

It is an undeniable fact americans love their phallic guns more than their children, obviously. Especially hypocrite pro-birthers.


Creamu said:


> Haven't found anything about that. Weird connection.


Nonsense, and you know it.


----------



## Creamu (May 31, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Yeah, there isn't a single american who fought off the Brits alive today. Largely thugs and bullies nowadays.


They are alive and well my friend. The americans did not perish.


Dark_Ansem said:


> Again, for the 100th times, laws don't work like that. We're talking about the future, not the past.


Palestians are being genocided as we speak by Israel. Practically speaking, how do you think anyone will get the weapons out of the hands of americans. I dont see it.


Dark_Ansem said:


> It is an undeniable fact americans love their phallic guns more than their children, obviously. Especially hypocrite pro-birthers.


Alot of them are good marksmen


Dark_Ansem said:


> Nonsense, and you know it.


All you have to do is provide a quote. It is not too much to ask. A scientist or journalist for example is required to give a quote/source when making claims.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 31, 2022)

Creamu said:


> They are alive and well my friend. The americans did not perish.


Are you being dense on purpose?


Creamu said:


> Palestians are being genocided as we speak by Israel. Practically speaking, how do you think anyone will get the weapons out of the hands of americans. I dont see it.


Which has literally nothing to do with this, as even if Palestinians were armed to the teeth they're completely outgunned by  Israeli technological superiority, so thanks for nothing.


Creamu said:


> Alot of them are good marksmen


Nah, a lot of them like the idea of owning a gun and parading around, but they all went to stormtrooper academy.


Creamu said:


> All you have to do is provide a quote. It is not too much to ask. A scientist or journalist for example is required to give a quote/source when making claims.


You're not a peer-reviewed journal. You're an anon user on a game forum who's gone on an edit spree. I owe you no editorial courtesy.

Anyway, a link? Here and here.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 31, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> First of all "stay mad", seriously? Are you that stupid?
> 
> Secondly, ad nauseam, no one is talking about taking your guns, laws don't work retroactively. Usually.


First of all, resorting to insults. Very classy.

Secondly, you'd think so, but no. They want all guns taken, retroactively or not.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 31, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> First of all, resorting to insults. Very classy.


Said the one who keeps throwing "stay mad" and other insults. You have a serious self-awareness issue.


KennyAtom said:


> Secondly, you'd think so, but no. They want all guns taken, retroactively or not.


evidence of GTFO. Because law doesn't work retroactively, so the probability of you making stuff up is extremely likely.


----------



## Creamu (May 31, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Are you being dense on purpose?


Not at all. The americans are a exeptional line of people. They were bold enough to fight for their liberty. Thats nothing you can learn, it's something you have in your blood.


Dark_Ansem said:


> Which has literally nothing to do with this, as even if Palestinians were armed to the teeth they're completely outgunned by  Israeli technological superiority, so thanks for nothing.


Palestinians are armed, and they put up a good fight. Extremely tough people. They had no choice but to become very tough. Alot of americans can see that and appreachiate that. They dont want give up their weapons, they are smarter than that.


Dark_Ansem said:


> Nah, a lot of them like the idea of owning a gun and parading around, but they all went to stormtrooper academy.


You are underestimating the americans.


Dark_Ansem said:


> You're not a peer-reviewed journal. You're an anon user on a game forum who's gone on an edit spree. I owe you no editorial courtesy.


So no quote. How unfortunate. Next time be sure to have a quote before you accuse others of saying things they did not say.


Dark_Ansem said:


> Anyway, a link? Here





Creamu said:


> If the global banking system is established in a region it comes with that flag.https://gbatemp.net/threads/world-war-iii-discussion.612775/post-9835675





Dark_Ansem said:


> and here.





Creamu said:


> I'm fine. To understand world confilct and world war it is important to understand the nature of territorial disputes and domination. Look at the appearance of the global banking system and the occurance of the rainbow flag.


I am still waiting for a quote that supports your claim.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 31, 2022)

Creamu said:


> Not at all. The americans are a exeptional line of people. They were bold enough to fight for their liberty. Thats nothing you can learn, it's something you have in your blood.


As have literally every other people through history. They were just RELATIVELY recent. Nothing special.


Creamu said:


> Palestinians are armed, and they put up a good fight. Extremely tough people. They had no choice but to become very tough. Alot of americans can see that and appreachiate that. They want give up their weapons, they are smarter than that.


The only thing Americans see when they think about palestinians is targets.


Creamu said:


> You are underestimating the americans.


No, I'm observing the facts. The ones who aren't are the shooters.


Creamu said:


> So no quote. How unfortunate. Next time be sure to have a quote before you accuse others of saying things they did not say.


You can't even read and are being disingenous on purpose.


Creamu said:


> I am still waiting for a quote that supports your claim.


You got it. Ignore it and have your little meltdown, I'm sick and tired of indulging _minus habens _.


----------



## Creamu (May 31, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Said the one who keeps throwing "stay mad" and other insults. You have a serious self-awareness issue.
> 
> evidence of GTFO. Because law doesn't work retroactively, so the probability of you making stuff up is extremely likely.


Making false accusations is a bad position to make these kind of statement from.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 31, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Said the one who keeps throwing "stay mad" and other insults. You have a serious self-awareness issue.


I mean, it's hard to have self awareness when half the other people on here don't. I mean seriously, we have someone making up extreme death scenarios just for someone owning a gun, and others not realizing that the testosterone thing was sarcasm.



Dark_Ansem said:


> evidence of GTFO. Because law doesn't work retroactively, so the probability of you making stuff up is extremely likely.


So I should get out because I don't want my guns taken away? Thanks, but no. We live in a society with free speech, and I can preach what I believe is correct, just as much as you can preach about what you think is correct.

Also just because I messed something up legally doesn't mean my other arguments are moot, you just wish they were moot.


----------



## Creamu (May 31, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> As have literally every other people through history. They were just RELATIVELY recent. Nothing special.


Oh no, most people have perished in evolutionary history. There is something really special about the way americans are willing to fight for their liberity.


Dark_Ansem said:


> The only thing Americans see when they think about palestinians is targets.


This is not true. The world as a whole is pretty disgusted with the genocide of the palestinians by israel.


Dark_Ansem said:


> You can't even read and are being disingenous on purpose.


Well you have demonstrated that you make accusations without providing evidence.


Dark_Ansem said:


> You got it. Ignore it and have your little meltdown, I'm sick and tired of indulging _minus habens _.


Thats for the better, making accusations without providing evidence is not a sign of good character.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 31, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> I mean, it's hard to have self awareness when half the other people on here don't. I mean seriously, we have someone making up extreme death scenarios just for someone owning a gun, and others not realizing that the testosterone thing was sarcasm.


You mean, as YOU did when you accused Biden of *raping* EVERY CHILD of America?


KennyAtom said:


> So I should get out because I don't want my guns taken away? Thanks, but no. We live in a society with free speech, and I can preach what I believe is correct, just as much as you can preach about what you think is correct.
> 
> Also just because I messed something up legally doesn't mean my other arguments are moot, you just wish they were moot.


You should GFTO because you're a strawmen-loving liar who adds nothing to the debate except ramblings.


Creamu said:


> Making false accusations is a bad position to make these kind of statement from.


Then you'd thread lightly.


Creamu said:


> Oh no, most people have perished in evolutionary history. There is something really special about the way americans are willing to fight for their liberity.


Complete and utter nonsense, the only thing Americans have been fighting for recently is the removal of the freedom of others. Invasion of Iraq and Syria?


Creamu said:


> This is not true. The world as a whole is pretty disgusted with the genocide of the palestinians by israel.


There's no genocide in Palestine, unless you belong to a minority doctrine which thinks so. Do you?


Creamu said:


> Well you have demonstrated that you make accusations without providing evidence.


LOL backtracking on your own words eh? That's ok, I accept your retreat.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 31, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> You mean, as YOU did when you accused Biden of *raping* EVERY CHILD of America?


Again, I was showing that if you wanted to lie, I could lie as well. I even backtracked on it admitting it was a lie made in spite, unlike you, who just keeps lying and lying over and over and never admitting lies.


Dark_Ansem said:


> You should GFTO because you're a strawmen-loving liar who adds nothing to the debate except ramblings.


Sounds like the insane ramblings of a kid gone insane because someone disagrees with him.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 31, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> Again, I was showing that if you wanted to lie, I could lie as well. I even backtracked on it admitting it was a lie made in spite, unlike you, who just keeps lying and lying over and over and never admitting lies.


I've not uttered a single lie, since I feel that the topic deserves a transparent approach.


KennyAtom said:


> Sounds like the insane ramblings of a kid gone insane because someone disagrees with him.


A guy like you, talking of committing crimes with no qualms whatsoever, would be considered pretty insane, and despicable. So thread lightly before throwing accusations.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 31, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> I've not uttered a single lie, since I feel that the topic deserves a transparent approach.


Ok, whatever you say, kid.


Dark_Ansem said:


> A guy like you, talking of committing crimes with no qualms whatsoever, would be considered pretty insane, and despicable. So thread lightly before throwing accusations.


For one, is it really a crime if the law breaks the constitution?
For two, how is despicable that I want to keep a literal constitutional right?
For three, insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result. Sounds like you need to go back to school, kid.
For four, "thread lightly"? Don't you mean tread lightly?

Man, kids today have become really fucking stupid.


----------



## Creamu (May 31, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Then you'd thread lightly.


I don't accuse people of saying things on a forum, were its easy to show a quote. It's a very bad look. If I was in your position I would consider adjusting my behavior.


Dark_Ansem said:


> Complete and utter nonsense, the only thing Americans have been fighting for recently is the removal of the freedom of others. Invasion of Iraq and Syria?


True. They are increasingly learning that they have been going down the wrong path for a long while now. But they are now starting to learn.


Dark_Ansem said:


> There's no genocide in Palestine, unless you belong to a minority doctrine which thinks so. Do you?


Palestineans are being genocided by Israel. 







Dark_Ansem said:


> LOL backtracking on your own words eh? That's ok, I accept your retreat.


You did not provide a quote for your accusation and now this.


----------



## Creamu (May 31, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> I've not uttered a single lie, since I feel that the topic deserves a transparent approach.


What a joke.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 31, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> Ok, whatever you say, kid.


I know. Unlike you, _minus habens_.


KennyAtom said:


> For one, is it really a crime if the law breaks the constitution?


Yes, until the law gets repealed.


KennyAtom said:


> For two, how is despicable that I want to keep a literal constitutional right?


No one is talking about taking your right away. So you can drop the rhetoric,


KennyAtom said:


> For three, insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result. Sounds like you need to go back to school, kid.


Said the one incapable of formulating a concept different than "hurr durr stay mad IMMA Break law"


KennyAtom said:


> For four, "thread lightly"? Don't you mean tread lightly?


It indeed is, my phone is obsessed with sewing apparently.


KennyAtom said:


> Man, kids today have become really fucking stupid.


Finally some self-awareness shown, well done!


Creamu said:


> I don't accuse people of saying things on a forum, were its easy to show a quote. It's a very bad look. If I was in your position I would consider adjusting my behavior.


Except that you DID say it.


Creamu said:


> True. They are increasingly learning that they have been going down the wrong path for a long while now. But they are now starting to learn.


And your evidence of that is?


Creamu said:


> Palestineans are being genocided by Israel.


In your opinion.


Creamu said:


> You did not provide a quote for your accusation and now this.


I did, it's not my fault you're (functionally) illiterate and don't even know what YOU are saying.


Creamu said:


> What a joke.


Point the lies out then, _minus habens_.


----------



## Creamu (May 31, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Except that you DID say it.


And oddly there is no quote providing your claim.


Dark_Ansem said:


> And your evidence of that is?


They are growing increasingly tierd of forgein wars in the middle east.


Dark_Ansem said:


> In your opinion.


So you deny the genocide of the palestinean people.


Dark_Ansem said:


> I did, it's not my fault you're (functionally) illiterate and don't even know what YOU are saying.


Well if you deny the genocide of the palestinean people, it's not suprising to me that you deny this as well.


Dark_Ansem said:


> Point the lies out then, _minus habens_.


You have not demonstrated your accusations to be true.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 31, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> I know. Unlike you, _minus habens_.


Yes, calling me stupid in a different language.



Very classy.


Dark_Ansem said:


> Yes, until the law gets repealed.


Well I still won't follow it, considering I'd be, at the very least, at least out 4k - 5k USD unless the government paid me back *IN FULL* for every gun.


Dark_Ansem said:


> No one is talking about taking your right away. So you can drop the rhetoric,


idk man, I've seen that all over the internet lately how they're planning to take our guns.


Dark_Ansem said:


> Said the one incapable of formulating a concept different than "hurr durr stay mad IMMA Break law"


Ok kid.


Dark_Ansem said:


> It indeed is, my phone is obsessed with sewing apparently.


Makes sense, I don't have this problem but some people do.


Dark_Ansem said:


> Finally some self-awareness shown, well done!


What self awareness? I was just saying how the fucking youth of society is just stupid because of our failing school system and such.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 31, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> What self awareness? I was just saying how the fucking youth of society is just stupid because of our failing school system and such


Precisely. Self-awareness. Also, Youth? How old are you exactly?
And the US school system is doomed to failure as long as you equate expensiveness with quality.



Creamu said:


> And oddly there is no quote providing your claim.


That's because there's two.



Creamu said:


> They are growing increasingly tierd of forgein wars in the middle east.


Hm. And yet they all complained when troops were pulled out of Afghanistan after requesting about it for a decade. Seems they're a bit confused.



Creamu said:


> you deny the genocide of the palestinean people.


You can't deny what doesn't exist.



Creamu said:


> You have not demonstrated your accusations to be true


But I did, you're just desperate and climbing on glass.


KennyAtom said:


> Well I still won't follow it, considering I'd be, at the very least, at least out 4k - 5k USD unless the government paid me back *IN FULL* for every gun.


Only 5k? The issue is even worse than I thought.



KennyAtom said:


> idk man, I've seen that all over the internet lately how they're planning to take our guns.


Did you see ME even entertain the idea, however? Because you're engaging with me right now, not all over the Internet.



KennyAtom said:


> Makes sense, I don't have this problem but some people do


Indeed, you got plenty of other problems, very concerning.


----------



## deinonychus71 (May 31, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> Guns aren't the problem here, the problem is mental health. Which well, if your working around the clock, with no required vacations. A healthcare system that requires to be paid for. Then your society is not going to handle wielding guns well at all. Since rationally ends up going out the window.


Don't get me wrong healthcare is crucial and should be a given. It's mind-boggling that the US still aren't addressing it, left or right. This whole "in network" thing on top of it... like I swear it confuses me every time as someone who used to live in Europe.
But i don't think "working around a clock" and healthcare explains why a 18yo would shoot people.
And even then, fixing one thing doesn't exclude trying to improve the other.


----------



## Creamu (May 31, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> That's because there's two.


And oddly there is no quote *providing your claim. * 


Dark_Ansem said:


> Hm. And yet they all complained when troops were pulled out of Afghanistan after requesting about it for a decade. Seems they're a bit confused.


Yes there are confused no doubt about it.


Dark_Ansem said:


> You can't deny what doesn't exist.


You are a palestinean genocide denier.


Dark_Ansem said:


> But I did, you're just desperate and climbing on glass.


Unfortunatly this is not true.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 31, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Precisely. Self-awareness. Also, Youth? How old are you exactly?
> And the US school system is doomed to failure as long as you equate expensiveness with quality.


Old enough to know what I'm talking about.
Also, expensiveness does equal quality, we just need better teachers.


Dark_Ansem said:


> Did you see ME even entertain the idea, however? Because you're engaging with me right now, not all over the Internet.


And I was explaining why I was scared of losing my guns.


Dark_Ansem said:


> Only 5k? The issue is even worse than I thought.


What issue? I have the right to spend my money on the stuff I want, considering I have enough saved that I can throw it at anything I want.


Dark_Ansem said:


> Indeed, you got plenty of other problems, very concerning.


What problems exactly?


----------



## budDRY (May 31, 2022)

just curious. has anyone read this?
instead of buy backs with cash. its buy back with fuel. this isnt the 1st this year with buy back programs

https://nypost.com/2022/05/23/calif...cops-offered-gift-cards-in-exchange-for-guns/


----------



## Hanafuda (May 31, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Stopped in 2018 dude, we're in 2022




The Wikipedia article stopped being updated in 2018. The explosions got worse.

From 2020. Bomb attacks up 60% in 2019
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-sweden-blast-idUSKBN1ZF1PD

From 2021
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ear-plagued-200-explosions-360-shootings.html


----------



## Creamu (May 31, 2022)

budDRY said:


> just curious. has anyone read this?
> instead of buy backs with cash. its buy back with fuel. this isnt the 1st this year with buy back programs
> 
> https://nypost.com/2022/05/23/calif...cops-offered-gift-cards-in-exchange-for-guns/


What a trainwreck



Hanafuda said:


> The Wikipedia article stopped being updated in 2018. The explosions got worse.
> 
> From 2020. Bomb attacks up 60% in 2019
> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-sweden-blast-idUSKBN1ZF1PD
> ...


There is no point in arguing with them, they doesn't even acknowledge the palestian genocide. Yet they wants americans to give up their guns.


----------



## Hanafuda (May 31, 2022)

budDRY said:


> buy backs




"buy back" is a term invented by gun control advocates to imply that government gave you the gun, and it will pay you to return it.


----------



## budDRY (May 31, 2022)

Creamu said:


> What a trainwreck


i was hoping someone had turned in some homemade gun like theyve done in the past lol


----------



## Creamu (May 31, 2022)

budDRY said:


> i was hoping someone had turned in some homemade gun like theyve done in the past lol


Wonder what that person looked like.


----------



## budDRY (May 31, 2022)

Hanafuda said:


> "buy back" is a term invented by gun control advocates to imply that government gave you the gun, and it will pay you to return it.


Australia
anyone remember that?



Hanafuda said:


> the Uvalde shooter was "bullied because he was poor,"



he wasnt bullied
https://www.wfaa.com/video/news/uva...oter/287-7ef7592d-c140-4110-9fc5-54e14e3fb91c

fbi identifies animal abuse as signs mental illness
sorry if im posting what is already known

oops delete? please



seany1990 said:


> In America a gun is more valuable than a human life


abortion?
i guess tax dollars for killing babies are more important?

https://marketplace.plannedparenthood.org/marketplace/abortion-is-health-care-t-shirt.html


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 31, 2022)

Creamu said:


> And oddly there is no quote *providing your claim. *


Again, issues with your literacy concern only yourself. Was it you or may ranting about the gay flag and the banking system? Was it YOU OR ME?


Creamu said:


> You are a palestinean genocide denier.


There's no genocide. Do you even know what genocide means, _minus habens?_


Creamu said:


> Unfortunatly this is not true.


Unfortunately for you, this is true.


KennyAtom said:


> Old enough to know what I'm talking about.
> Also, expensiveness does equal quality, we just need better teachers.


Nonsense. You need to stop bullying teachers and paying them crap. Any teacher is better than a gun owner.


KennyAtom said:


> And I was explaining why I was scared of losing my guns.


You were actually gleefully explaining how you'd break the law, but let's not nitpick shall we.


KennyAtom said:


> What issue? I have the right to spend my money on the stuff I want, considering I have enough saved that I can throw it at anything I want.


The issue of price tags.


Creamu said:


> There is no point in arguing with them, they doesn't even acknowledge the palestian genocide. Yet they wants americans to give up their guns.


Only Palestinians claim there's a genocide. Are you from palestine?
Also, what's with your ridiculous signature image, you tinfoil hat?


Hanafuda said:


> From 2021
> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ear-plagued-200-explosions-360-shootings.html


Daily Mail, the "paper" not good even for wikipedia.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 31, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Nonsense. You need to stop bullying teachers and paying them crap. Any teacher is better than a gun owner.


I don't bully teachers, I help with teaching, but do go off I guess about how gun owners are hitler but more evil.


Dark_Ansem said:


> You were actually gleefully explaining how you'd break the law, but let's not nitpick shall we.


A law that would be illegal and struck down, but let's not nitpick shall we.


Dark_Ansem said:


> The issue of price tags.


The only thing I agree with. Guns are too goddamned expensive.


----------



## Creamu (May 31, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Again, issues with your literacy concern only yourself. Was it you or may ranting about the gay flag and the banking system? Was it YOU OR ME?


Well perhaps it has something to do with your character. If you deny ongoing genocides and tell americans to give up their guns it really raises some eyebrows.


Dark_Ansem said:


> There's no genocide. Do you even know what genocide means, _minus habens?_





> The United Nations (UN) Defines genocide as any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
> 
> 
> Killing members of the group;
> ...




https://www.publichealth.com.ng/the-united-nations-un-definition-of-genocide/

Do you deny other genocides as well. How about the Holodomor?


Dark_Ansem said:


> Unfortunately for you, this is true.


No, you accused me of saying something and did not provide quotes that proved your case.


Dark_Ansem said:


> Only Palestinians claim there's a genocide. Are you from palestine?
> Also, what's with your ridiculous signature image, you tinfoil hat?


Well you can say what you want, but at least I don't cyncially deny the palestinian genocide and tell americans to give up their guns.


----------



## tabzer (May 31, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Do you make a deliberate effort to be this dense, or are you naturally "ungifted"?



Why don't you just explain it?


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 31, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> The only thing I agree with. Guns are too goddamned expensive.


And clearly life so cheap. At least I'm glad pro-birthers are revealed for being all accomplices to child murder.


Creamu said:


> Well perhaps it has something to do with your character. If you deny ongoing genocides and tell americans to give up their guns it really raises some eyebrows.


By your own definition there is no genocide in palestine. Maybe it goes with your character to spread baseless conspiracies.


Creamu said:


> Do you deny other genocides as well. How about the Holodomor?


Holodomor is internationally recognised as a genocide. Your nonsense about palestine is largely only told by you and palestinians. Are you palestinian?


Creamu said:


> No, you accused me of saying something and did not provide quotes that proved your case.


I totally did and you cleverly ignored the direct reference, liar.


Creamu said:


> Well you can say what you want, but at least I don't cyncially deny the palestinian genocide and tell americans to give up their guns.


It's not like they're linked concepts, so the fact that you put them together shows you're more than unhinged, low-level tinfoil hat.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 31, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Why don't you just explain it?


Because it should be painfully obvious, or am I to believe you never saw that simpson episode?


----------



## KennyAtom (May 31, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> And clearly life so cheap. At least I'm glad pro-birthers are revealed for being all accomplices to child murder.


Again, just because I own guns doesn't mean I murder children.

You'd think these people would have a better argument than "If you own guns you murder children!!!!!"

That's just walking all over dead kids graves to push your agenda, and that's disgusting as all hell.



Dark_Ansem said:


> Because it should be painfully obvious, or am I to believe you never saw that simpson episode?


I've seen it, but it still doesn't make any sense.

in the original episode, bart simpson has a catchphrase he repeats all the time to stay famous, so am I to believe that if he says the no way to prevent this line in the classroom everyone instantly dies? this meme isn't very funny, and it is hard to understand.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 31, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> Again, just because I own guns doesn't mean I murder children.
> 
> You'd think these people would have a better argument than "If you own guns you murder children!!!!!"
> 
> That's just walking all over dead kids graves to push your agenda, and that's disgusting as all hell.


You obviously place more value on your freudian desire to have guns than towards effort in fixing an issue that is all too real in the US. Those dead children are your responsibility too.









KennyAtom said:


> in the original episode, bart simpson has a catchphrase he repeats all the time to stay famous, so am I to believe that if he says the no way to prevent this line in the classroom everyone instantly dies? this meme isn't very funny, and it is hard to understand.


Actually, in that episode, Bart becomes famous BECAUSE of that phrase, and is asked to repeat it excessively up to the point people are sick of it and he stops being funny and famous. Just like IRL people are sick of hearing pro-gun platitudes and nonsense when children die just to protect your egos.

You didn't really get the episode, did you?


----------



## KennyAtom (May 31, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> You obviously place more value on your freudian desire to have guns than towards effort in fixing an issue that is all too real in the US. Those dead children are your responsibility too.


Nope, they're not my responsibility. It's not my fault people are unhinged, and to even suggest that I give up my rights because of a few bad apples is honestly appalling.

Also, again, using dead kids to push your agenda. Sick, man.


----------



## SyphenFreht (May 31, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> the problem is mental health, not guns.
> 
> gun control just leaves us law abiding citizens without self defense, since criminals don't follow the law and will keep their guns.



 I for one agree it's a mental health issue, but the solution shouldn't be too make getting guns easier while still not doing anything about the mental health problem. I don't believe in a gun ban, but why the hell people believe someone's coming for their guns is beyond me. This literally happens every time we face this same type of scenario. Obama never came for anyone's guns, and neither had any other president. It's all red herring to distract people and keep them divided while gun manufacturers and the NRA profit from the fear campaigns they spear head every time a tragedy like this happens. 

I will also say this: between abortion rights being taken away and gun rights being further enforced (but oddly only when tragedy happens), it's becoming clear that, at least a potion of the republican party has proved that they care little to none about anyone but themselves. Women can't have abortions and everyone has to have guns but none of them want to help create and support a system where abortions aren't needed and people with mental health issues get the help they need so they don't shoot up schools and churches and whatnot. More and more recently they've shown that they care more about fantastical ideals of self absorption and individualistic idealism than the safety and wellbeing of the average American as a whole. It's sickening. 

(No, @KennyAtom, I'm not lumping you in particular with my comment, however your mental health issue comment seemed like a good jumping point for me, so thank you for that.)

At the end of the day, gun rights, abortion rights, blah blah blah, is all a fear and control campaign. Americans as a whole will always check off personal inconvenience before solidarity, and it's disgusting.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 31, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Actually, in that episode, Bart becomes famous BECAUSE of that phrase, and is asked to repeat it excessively up to the point people are sick of it. Just like IRL people are sick of hearing pro-gun platitudes and nonsense when children die just to protect your egos.


Ok then, do something about it. Don't whine on the internet, actually do something.

Oh, you want to sit on your soapbox and lecture us on how we are oh so wrong and you are oh so right instead of doing something? Ok then, but don't be surprised when things still don't go your way.


Dark_Ansem said:


> You didn't really get the episode, did you?


Not exactly, considering I tuned out that week. (It was one of my least favorite episodes)


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 31, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> Nope, they're not my responsibility. It's not my fault people are unhinged, and to even suggest that I give up my rights because of a few bad apples is honestly appalling.


A few bad apples = https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41488081 
345 "active" incidents ALONE in 20 years, that's more than once per month.

There's no "few bad apples". It's the whole tree that's rotten.



KennyAtom said:


> Also, again, using dead kids to push your agenda. Sick, man.


Actually, I'd love to PREVENT more dead kids, minus habens. You don't. At least I'm more pro-life than you!


----------



## Creamu (May 31, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> By your own definition there is no genocide in palestine. Maybe it goes with your character to spread baseless conspiracies.


No I just like to point out people who tell other to make themselves defensless while denying genocides.


Dark_Ansem said:


> Holodomor is internationally recognised as a genocide. Your nonsense about palestine is largely only told by you and palestinians. Are you palestinian?


And you thing internationally people dont recognize the genocide of the palestinains? They do.


Dark_Ansem said:


> I totally did and you cleverly ignored the direct reference, liar.


What do you mean?


Dark_Ansem said:


> It's not like they're linked concepts, so the fact that you put them together shows you're more than unhinged, low-level tinfoil hat.


They are linked, because attacking the american population while armed would be far more costly than genociding the palestinians. Although that is increasingly costly because its a bad look just like the 66.000.000 genocided under the bolshevik regime.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 31, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> I for one agree it's a mental health issue, but the solution shouldn't be too make getting guns easier while still not doing anything about the mental health problem. I don't believe in a gun ban, but why the hell people believe someone's coming for their guns is beyond me. This literally happens every time we face this same type of scenario. Obama never came for anyone's guns, and neither had any other president. It's all red herring to distract people and keep them divided while gun manufacturers and the NRA profit from the fear campaigns they spear head every time a tragedy like this happens.
> 
> I will also say this: between abortion rights being taken away and gun rights being further enforced (but oddly only when tragedy happens), it's becoming clear that, at least a potion of the republican party has proved that they care little to none about anyone but themselves. Women can't have abortions and everyone has to have guns but none of them want to help create and support a system where abortions aren't needed and people with mental health issues get the help they need so they don't shoot up schools and churches and whatnot. More and more recently they've shown that they care more about fantastical ideals of self absorption and individualistic idealism than the safety and wellbeing of the average American as a whole. It's sickening.
> 
> ...


This is actually a good response, take notes.


----------



## tabzer (May 31, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Because it should be painfully obvious, or am I to believe you never saw that simpson episode?


I don't see why the Onion should be the one embarrassed about saying it.  It's already a meme.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 31, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> Ok then, do something about it. Don't whine on the internet, actually do something.
> 
> Oh, you want to sit on your soapbox and lecture us on how we are oh so wrong and you are oh so right instead of doing something? Ok then, but don't be surprised when things still don't go your way.


There's very little that can be done without cooperation from you nutcases. Just how many more kids need to die so that you lot will understand that something needs to be done?



tabzer said:


> I don't see why the Onion should be the one embarrassed about saying it. It's already a meme.


You should be embarassed at your obvious attempt at pretending you didn't understand it just to annoy others.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 31, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> A few bad apples = https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41488081
> 345 "active" incidents ALONE in 20 years, that's more than once per month.
> 
> There's no "few bad apples". It's the whole tree that's rotten.


Nope, just a few bad apples.

Also only 345 in 20 years? If it was 10 years I'd understand, but 20 is too long to prove a point.



Dark_Ansem said:


> Actually, I'd love to PREVENT more dead kids, minus habens. You don't. At least I'm more pro-life than you!


1. That phase makes you feel so smart, but it makes you seem like someone who just wants to prove he's smarter than half the world.
2. I want to prevent dead kids as well, which is why I support mental health reform and background checks. Any further than background checks and I start getting a teensy weensy bit worried.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 31, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> This is actually a good response, take notes.


It's literally the same thing plenty of other users, including myself, have been telling you for a dozen pages now.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 31, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> It's literally the same thing plenty of other users, including myself, have been telling you for a dozen pages now.


But he didn't call me a stupid, he never insulted me, he just explained why he felt the way he did. That's why you should take notes.


Dark_Ansem said:


> There's very little that can be done without cooperation from you nutcases. Just how many more kids need to die so that you lot will understand that something needs to be done?


Again, more whining from your soapbox. Do something if you want something done, don't just sit around and bawl "Oh, those evil evil gun owners who will never commit a mass shooting don't want to give up their guns for a few bad apples being evil!!!! Why are they just like Hitler!!!!!!" (Obvious exaggeration, but you get the point. If you want something done, don't whine and bawl on the internet, go out and spread change.)


----------



## tabzer (May 31, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> You should be embarassed at your obvious attempt at pretending you didn't understand it just to annoy others.


It'd make sense if it was a pro gun platitude, as you suggested.  But it isn't.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 31, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> Nope, just a few bad apples.


Whole rotten tree.


KennyAtom said:


> Also only 345 in 20 years? If it was 10 years I'd understand, but 20 is too long to prove a point.


This makes no sense at all. In fact a longer observation window brings validity to a point.


KennyAtom said:


> 1. That phase makes you feel so smart, but it makes you seem like someone who just wants to prove he's smarter than half the world.


The obvious doesn't need to be referenced or demonstrated.


KennyAtom said:


> 2. I want to prevent dead kids as well, which is why I support mental health reform and background checks. Any further than background checks and I start getting a teensy weensy bit worried.


Eh. Pity that your party in, say, Texas, has just cut mental health support funds.


KennyAtom said:


> But he didn't call me a stupid, he never insulted me, he just explained why he felt the way he did. That's why you should take notes.


Ah so your feelings hurt prevent you from understanding. Also, you really can't complain, since you started this whole charade of insults first. Maybe, if you didn't want to be put in your place, you'd have been reasonable from the beginning.


KennyAtom said:


> Again, more whining from your soapbox. Do something if you want something done, don't just sit around


I'm not a gun owner and I'm not responsible for obstructing reform. You are both of these things.



tabzer said:


> It'd make sense if it was a pro gun platitude, as you suggested. But it isn't.


I never said it was a pro gun platitude meme. The phrase that Bart says is, however, referencing the pro-gun platitude which is "no way to prevent this". Which is false, since there's plenty of ways to prevent gun violence.


----------



## Creamu (May 31, 2022)

How would one take the guns away from americans? How would that practically work? Its impossible.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 31, 2022)

Creamu said:


> How would one take the guns away from americans? How would that practically work? Its impossible.


Why are you throwing this dead cat on the table. NO-ONE is talking about to take guns away, JFC. how many times does it need to be said to penetrate that box keeping your shoulders separate?


----------



## KennyAtom (May 31, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Whole rotten tree.


Few bad apples.


Dark_Ansem said:


> This makes no sense at all. In fact a longer observation window brings validity to a point.


Explain how.


Dark_Ansem said:


> The obvious doesn't need to be referenced or demonstrated.


Look, I'm just tired of you spamming the same "emptius mindus" latin phase over and over. It's annoying, and makes it seem as if you're trying to look smart.


Dark_Ansem said:


> Eh. Pity that your party in, say, Texas, has just cut mental health support funds.


I don't live in Texas, what am I supposed to do?


Dark_Ansem said:


> Ah so your feelings hurt prevent you from understanding. Also, you really can't complain, since you started this whole charade of insults first. Maybe, if you didn't want to be put in your place, you'd have been reasonable from the beginning.


Nah, my feelings were never hurt, I just couldn't take you so seriously with all the name calling from your side.

Also I never started calling people insults until they started calling me insults, so therefore, not my fault, not my problem. 


Dark_Ansem said:


> I'm not a gun owner and I'm not responsible for obstructing reform. You are both of these things.


Nah man, you're just lying. I own guns, yes, but I do support background checks gaining more strength. That's reform.


----------



## tabzer (May 31, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> I never said it was a pro gun platitude.



I didn't say that you said it was, but in your response to Kenny you gave a scenario that would make sense.



Dark_Ansem said:


> Actually, in that episode, Bart becomes famous BECAUSE of that phrase, and is asked to repeat it excessively up to the point people are sick of it and he stops being funny and famous. Just like IRL people are sick of hearing pro-gun platitudes and nonsense when children die just to protect your egos.
> 
> You didn't really get the episode, did you?


----------



## Creamu (May 31, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Why are you throwing this dead cat on the table. NO-ONE is talking about to take guns away, JFC. how many times does it need to be said to penetrate that box keeping your shoulders separate?


Oh, I'm relieved then.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 31, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> Few bad apples.


Whole rotten tree.


KennyAtom said:


> Explain how.


Do you know what a "longitudinal study" is?


KennyAtom said:


> Look, I'm just tired of you spamming the same "emptius mindus" latin phase over and over. It's annoying, and makes it seem as if you're trying to look smart.


_Minus habens, _at least get your latinorum right.


KennyAtom said:


> I don't live in Texas, what am I supposed to do?


"Stop bawling from your soapbox and do something".


KennyAtom said:


> Nah, my feelings were never hurt, I just couldn't take you so seriously with all the name calling from your side.
> 
> Also I never started calling people insults until they started calling me insults, so therefore, not my fault, not my problem.


COMPLETELY false.


KennyAtom said:


> but I do support background checks gaining more strength. That's reform.


And you keep voting the party which wants to do neither of those things.


Creamu said:


> Oh, I'm relieved then.


Why? Are you american? Do you have guns that you fear are being taken away from your pram?


tabzer said:


> in your response to Kenny you gave a scenario that would make sense.


It's not "a scenario". It's the explanation of the meme by the Onion?


----------



## Creamu (May 31, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Why? Are you american? Do you have guns that you fear are being taken away from your pram?


Why? Do you have any advice?


----------



## KennyAtom (May 31, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Whole rotten tree.


Few bad apples.


Dark_Ansem said:


> Do you know what a "longitudinal study" is?


A what now?


Dark_Ansem said:


> _Minus habens, _at least get your latinorum right.


The fact you bothered to correct me and use that weird word just proves my point.


Dark_Ansem said:


> "Stop bawling from your soapbox and do something".


idk man, I don't know what I can do at this point. I don't really think it's a soapbox thing, it's more of a "I'm not upending my own life just to move to a state and vote for one thing" thing.


Dark_Ansem said:


> COMPLETELY false.


COMPLETELY true.


Dark_Ansem said:


> And you keep voting the party which wants to do neither of those things.


I have not voted since 2016, since both candidates for 2020 were ass.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 31, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> Few bad apples.


Whole rotten tree.


KennyAtom said:


> A what now?


https://www.scribbr.com/methodology...searchers,trying to influence those variables.


KennyAtom said:


> The fact you bothered to correct me and use that weird word just proves my point.


It's not weird. It's latin.


KennyAtom said:


> idk man, I don't know what I can do at this point. I don't really think it's a soapbox thing, it's more of a "I'm not upending my own life just to move to a state and vote for one thing" thing.


Congress and Senate elections do exist.


KennyAtom said:


> COMPLETELY true.


Completely false, and you know it.


KennyAtom said:


> I have not voted since 2016, since both candidates for 2020 were ass.


Sloth is a deadly sin.


----------



## budDRY (May 31, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> NO-ONE is talking about to take guns away, JFC.


except politicians
who is this "no-one"? 
is this "no one" person making laws?


----------



## KennyAtom (May 31, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Whole rotten tree.


Few bad apples.


Dark_Ansem said:


> https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/longitudinal-study/#:~:text=In a longitudinal study, researchers,trying to influence those variables.


Makes sense i guess. Still do not care.


Dark_Ansem said:


> It's not weird. It's latin.


But you admit my point about you trying to sound smart was correct? Alright then.


Dark_Ansem said:


> Congress and Senate elections do exist.


Are you on something right now? I can vote for congressmen and senators in my own state, not in Texas, or anywhere else. I can't influence Texan politics from 2k miles away.


Dark_Ansem said:


> Completely false, and you know it.


Completely true, and you know it.


Dark_Ansem said:


> Sloth is a deadly sin.


I agree, but it wasn't a matter of laziness, it was a matter of principle. Why bother to vote when we have a orange cheeto and a senile old man running for president?


----------



## SyphenFreht (May 31, 2022)

budDRY said:


> except politicians
> who is this "no-one"?
> is this "no one" person making laws?


Who's taking them away then? Can we have specifics, so we know who to vote out of office?


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 31, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> Few bad apples.


Whole rotten tree.


KennyAtom said:


> Makes sense i guess. Still do not care.


You should. Longitudinal studies are the most reliable of research.


KennyAtom said:


> But you admit my point about you trying to sound smart was correct? Alright then.


I don't need to sound what I already am. I sound more religious, if anything.


KennyAtom said:


> Are you on something right now? I can vote for congressmen and senators in my own state, not in Texas, or anywhere else. I can't influence Texan politics from 2k miles away.


And they influence the direction of the whole country.


KennyAtom said:


> Completely true, and you know it.


Completely false.


KennyAtom said:


> I agree, but it wasn't a matter of laziness, it was a matter of principle. Why bother to vote when we have a orange cheeto and a senile old man running for president?


Because one orange cheeto is a seditious terrorist leader who tried to overthrow american democracy and who mocks disabled people, and the "senile" old man (no evidence of senility) is a respected civil servant.


----------



## Hanafuda (May 31, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


>



Stupid comparison. Firearms aren't "responsible" for criminal misuse any more than the Waukesha killer's SUV was responsible for killing 6 and seriously injuring 62 more. And that's before getting into the distribution of that claimed # of victims, which will be about half suicides, and much of the remainder attributable to the "victim" being involved in criminal or gang activity. Dishonest propaganda.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 31, 2022)

Hanafuda said:


> Stupid comparison. Firearms aren't "responsible" for criminal misuse any more than the Waukesha killer's SUV was responsible for killing 6 and seriously injuring 62 more. And that's before getting into the distribution of that claimed # of victims, which will be about half suicides, and much of the remainder attributable to the "victim" being involved in criminal or gang activity. Dishonest propaganda.


Yes, the BBC now is "dishonest propaganda". For America LMAO you lot are ridiculous


----------



## KennyAtom (May 31, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Whole rotten tree.


Few bad apples.


Dark_Ansem said:


> You should. Longitudinal studies are the most reliable of research.


As long as it doesn't affect me, why should I?


Dark_Ansem said:


> I don't need to sound what I already am. I sound more religious, if anything.


Then straight up call me stupid to my face (avatar?), don't hide behind those pussy ass latin words.


Dark_Ansem said:


> And they influence the direction of the whole country.


But they don't affect Texan politics. The point was I couldn't control mental health spending in texas.


Dark_Ansem said:


> Completely false.


Completely true.


Dark_Ansem said:


> Because one orange cheeto is a seditious terrorist leader who tried to overthrow american democracy and who mocks disabled people, and the "senile" old man (no evidence of senility) is a respected civil servant.


You do realize the attacks took place after they confirmed he won? There was no way I could have known that before voting.

Also biden isn't much better, see the Afghanistan pullout for one.


----------



## budDRY (May 31, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Who's taking them away then? Can we have specifics, so we know who to vote out of office?


look at you state
ive looked up mine when i used to live in cali. ive also looked up bills which was silently passed under citizens noses. example under age prostitution in california was passed 2017. i went to the local library and found that it was published in a small article


----------



## KennyAtom (May 31, 2022)

also we can murder people with cars, when will cars be banned?

we can stab people to death, when are knives banned?

we can strangle people to death with ropes or rope like objects, when will power cords, ropes, sting, backpacks (they have straps), shoestring, and many more be banned?


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 31, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> Few bad apples.


Whole rotten tree.



KennyAtom said:


> As long as it doesn't affect me, why should I?


Ah yes, the I'm alright Jack mindset. And besides, the consequences of longitudinal studies DO affect you. And others.




KennyAtom said:


> Then straight up call me stupid to my face (avatar?), don't hide behind those pussy ass latin words.


First of all, "stupid' doesn't convey what I want to say. Secondly, Latin existed long before you and will keep existing long after you turned to dust. That's pretty badass, unlike your pussy-ass flesh and blood.



KennyAtom said:


> The point was I couldn't control mental health spending in texas.


National direction does have an influence at state level. Hopefully.



KennyAtom said:


> Completely true.


Completely false.



KennyAtom said:


> You do realize the attacks took place after they confirmed he won? There was no way I could have known that before voting.


The attack took place when he refused to concede and started his stolen election nonsense.



KennyAtom said:


> Also biden isn't much better, see the Afghanistan pullout for one.


Afghanistan pullout was largely organised by trump the previous year, including the liberation from prison of the current Taliban terrorist leader. The fault lies strongly with the Cheeto.



KennyAtom said:


> we can stab people to death, when are knives banned?


They are, in public. Thumb rule, anyone?



KennyAtom said:


> also we can murder people with cars, when will cars be banned


Barriers like the Arsenal barrier in London do exist. Effectively nullifying the threat.



KennyAtom said:


> we can strangle people to death with ropes or rope like objects, when will power cords, ropes, sting, backpacks (they have straps), shoestring, and many more be banned


Their manufacturing process has been reformed throughout the years to make them as safe as possible. Even pen caps were reformed when someone choked to death: now they have a hole for breathing.


----------



## budDRY (May 31, 2022)

Afghanistan pullout was largely organised by trump the previous year, including the liberation from prison of the current Taliban terrorist leader. The fault lies strongly with the Cheeto.
[/QUOTE]

but who made the last minute decision?
must of been trump


----------



## KennyAtom (May 31, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Whole rotten tree.


Few bad apples.


Dark_Ansem said:


> Ah yes, the I'm alright Jack mindset. And besides, the consequences of longitudinal studies DO affect you. And others.


Not really, gun laws won't change for a long while.


Dark_Ansem said:


> First of all, "stupid' doesn't convey what I want to say. Secondly, Latin existed long before you and will keep existing long after you turned to dust. That's pretty badass, unlike your pussy-ass flesh and blood.


Everything lasts longer than us. English will outlast us, buildings will outlast us, nature will outlast us. We are all pussy-ass flesh and blood.


Dark_Ansem said:


> National direction does have an influence at state level. Hopefully.


Not usually.


Dark_Ansem said:


> Completely false.


Completely true.


Dark_Ansem said:


> The attack took place when he refused to concede and started his stolen election nonsense.


Still after voting day, it wasn't my problem until he attempt to retake the nation.


Dark_Ansem said:


> Afghanistan pullout was largely organised by trump the previous year, including the liberation from prison of the current Taliban terrorist leader. The fault lies strongly with the Cheeto.


Eh, even I know he would have done better than 8 billion dollars left in Afghanistan for the Taliban to use, and I know he sucked bad.



Dark_Ansem said:


> They are, in public. Thumb rule, anyone?


Not here, as far as I know.


Dark_Ansem said:


> Barriers like the Arsenal barrier in London do exist. Effectively nullifying the threat.


We don't have barriers like that here, closest is subways and buildings.


Dark_Ansem said:


> Their manufacturing process has been reformed throughout the years to make them as safe as possible. Even pen caps were reformed when someone choked to death: now they have a hole for breathing.


That's accidental choking, I mean choking done by others.


----------



## tabzer (May 31, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> It's not "a scenario". It's the explanation of the meme by the Onion?



So the Onion posted the Simpson's meme about something they said?  Is it commentary about the futility in saying it because it doesn't change anything?


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 31, 2022)

budDRY said:


> but who made the last minute decision?
> must of been trump


Must *have. And there's no such thing as a "last minute" decision, it took months.



Creamu said:


> Why? Do you have any advice?


Plenty.



KennyAtom said:


> Few bad apples.


Whole rotten tree.



KennyAtom said:


> Not really, gun laws won't change for a long while


Who knows, you'd be wrong.



KennyAtom said:


> Everything lasts longer than us. English will outlast us, buildings will outlast us, nature will outlast us. We are all pussy-ass flesh and blood.


Latin is several centuries ahead of English.



KennyAtom said:


> Eh, even I know he would have done better than 8 billion dollars left in Afghanistan for the Taliban to use, and I know he sucked bad.


I'm fairly certain you're wrong. The disappointment was real.


KennyAtom said:


> That's accidental choking, I mean choking done by others


Choking someone with a backpack is considerably more difficult than shooting someone at point blank. And backpacks aren't devised for choking. Guns have one purpose; to be shot. Infinitely easier than using a backpack to choke someone.


----------



## Creamu (May 31, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Plenty.


Want to elaborate?


----------



## budDRY (May 31, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Must *have. And there's no such thing as a "last minute" decision, it took months.


bahaha


----------



## KennyAtom (May 31, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Whole rotten tree.


Since that part isn't going anywhere, let's both agree to disagree that we won't change our parts of opinions on this.


Dark_Ansem said:


> Who knows, you'd be wrong.


I know I'm right, considering this has happened before and no laws were changed.


Dark_Ansem said:


> Latin is several centuries ahead of English.


Both will still outlast you and I.


Dark_Ansem said:


> I'm fairly certain you're wrong. The disappointment was real.


I still blame Biden for that, Trump made some mistakes, but none as bad as this.


Dark_Ansem said:


> Choking someone with a backpack is considerably more difficult than shooting someone at point blank. And backpacks aren't devised for choking. Guns have one purpose; to be shot. Infinitely easier than using a backpack to choke someone.


But criminals will find a way, so why aren't they banned yet! They can kill!


----------



## SyphenFreht (May 31, 2022)

budDRY said:


> look at you state
> ive looked up mine when i used to live in cali. ive also looked up bills which was silently passed under citizens noses. example under age prostitution in california was passed 2017. i went to the local library and found that it was published in a small article


I mean, I can look up anything any time I want. I'm not above Google. I'm curious to know who YOU'VE seen actively try to ban guns, in particular. I'd like to see it from YOUR perspective. If you can't provide that, then don't leave blanket statements.


budDRY said:


> Afghanistan pullout was largely organised by trump the previous year, including the liberation from prison of the current Taliban terrorist leader. The fault lies strongly with the Cheeto. but who made the last minute decision? must of been trump



Part of the reason why gas prices are so high. America's run thin on its own oil reserves, so we pull out of Afghanistan during Trumps reign of incompetence and blame Biden for the terrible gas prices (of which I do understand his part in shutting down the Keystone Pipeline, and is also responsible.)

Turns out all politicians are crap, none of them care about the bottom tier of Americans, and are more than content to watch all of us kill each other over mental health issues and poverty wages and personal rights.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 31, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> I still blame Biden for that, Trump made some mistakes, but none as bad as this.


No eh? Because treason isn't as bad. Lmao.
Freeing the taliban leader isn't as bad. HAH!



budDRY said:


> bahaha


Risus abundat in ore stultorum, yep.


KennyAtom said:


> But criminals will find a way, so why aren't they banned yet! They can kill!


Remind me the last occurrence of a mass killing by backpack. Or pen.


----------



## V10lator (May 31, 2022)

To all the guys telling about healthcare issues: Did you ever look into other countries? Here in germany teens have mental health issues while we have one of the best healthcares in the world. These teens don't talk about their issues untill it's to late. The best healthcare system can't help someone who doesn't want help.
On the other side we have way less scool massacres, simply because it's way more hard to get access to a gun for them. When they freak out with a knife they are taken down easily (w/o killing them).

Now some say even with anti-gun laws people would not give their guns back. Some of you even say you'll keep your own guns no matter what. I agree that this is a big problem but there are solutins (like livelong jail for people having guns w/o permission. Hardest possible punishment when your gun was used in a massacre and so on). They won't fruit overnight but when you never start with them you'll always have these problems.

Also you gun lovers should maybe have a look at your own state of mental health cause such gun loving isn't normal.



KennyAtom said:


> gun deaths are overblown, they aren't too bad, it's just the really bad ones that get onto international news.


And how often do you hear such internaltional news from other countries than the US? In other words: You have more such news than all other countries combined. Yea, clearly isn't that bad, right?


KennyAtom said:


> now criminals have the upper hand, they can rape you now, shoot you, rob you, and since you are a law abiding citizen, you cannot do anything as the cops have banned guns for you.


Again: Look into other countries! How many gang-shootings do we have in germany again, for example? How many of us get raped, shooted, robbed, bla?


KennyAtom said:


> We need more armed guards at school


Yea, bring the guns as near to potential shooters as possible. What could possibly go wrong?



Hanafuda said:


> The metal detectors could be built as the frame of the entrance door. Less obtrusive, less possible to evade too. Doesn't have to be a stand-alone apparatus like we're used to seeing at airports, courthouses.


What about windows? What if they throw the guns over the garden fence into the scools playground and pick them up there? To fix all issues you would need to make a scool like a jail. How good will that be for the scoolers mental health?


----------



## KennyAtom (May 31, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> No eh? Because treason isn't as bad. Lmao.
> Freeing the taliban leader isn't as bad. HAH!


Again, I'm referring to before the insurrection, why do you believe I mean after when I've stated otherwise?


Dark_Ansem said:


> Remind me the last occurrence of a mass killing by backpack. Or pen.


My source is there is no source. It will happen though if guns are banned. Criminals always find a way.



V10lator said:


> And how often do you hear such internaltional news from other countries than the US? In other words: You have more such news than all other countries combined. Yea, clearly isn't that bad, right?
> 
> Again: Look into other countries! How many gang-shootings do we have in germany again, for example? How many of us get raped, shooted, robbed, bla?
> 
> Yea, bring the guns as near to potential shooters as possible. What could possibly go wrong?


That's because you lost guns much earlier, here, criminals won't give their guns up and instead take advantage of gun bans.


----------



## budDRY (May 31, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> I mean, I can look up anything any time I want. I'm not above Google. I'm curious to know who YOU'VE seen actively try to ban guns, in particular. I'd like to see it from YOUR perspective. If you can't provide that, then don't leave blanket statements.
> 
> 
> Turns out all politicians are crap, none of them care about the bottom tier of Americans, and are more than content to watch all of us kill each other over mental health issues and poverty wages and personal rights.


sorry if im leaving blank statements. im just saying ive done my research of bills laws in the state i lived in and not focus on who. i understand what your point. both parties are for gun ban. except the right side likes to "beat around the bush". example a Republican rep "adam king(something) went on cnn and supports the idea even though hes says he support the 2nd amendment.

i bet you feel superior everytime you insultt


Dark_Ansem said:


> Risus abundat in ore stultorum, yep.


----------



## V10lator (May 31, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> That's because you lost guns much earlier, here, criminals won't give their guns up and instead take advantage of gun bans.


Again: There will never be a change when you don't start it. Sure it will take time but it is possible.

Criminals will take advantage? Do you have anything backing this statement up? We have illegal guns all around the world (mafias in different countries and so on) and are still able to enforce laws. These bad guys land in jail sooner or later and their guns will be removed.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 31, 2022)

V10lator said:


> Again: There will never be a change when you don't start it. Sure it will take time but it is possible.
> 
> Criminals will take advantage? Do you have anything backing this statement up? We have illegal guns all around the world (mafias in different countries and so on) and are still able to enforce laws. These bad guys land in jail sooner or later and their guns will be removed.


Well, I might not have proof, but I do know it'll happen.

Hell, I wouldn't put it past the criminals here to do something like that, I need some way to protect myself somehow.


----------



## V10lator (May 31, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> I need some way to protect myself somehow.


Rest of the world doesn't seem to need that, so why do you? Think before you answer, please: There are counties just as big or bigger than yours. There are countries with large, open areas. There are countries with bad healthcare and so on, and so forth. Basically for anything you could use as an argument there's at least one other country on this planet showing that you don't need guns cause of that.

Also what happens when somebody steals your gun and points in onto your head? How does the gun protect you now?

See, people like you argue against 99% of the world. Argue against reality. Still you think you're right. That's why a lot of people say it's useless talking to you: You aren't listening, are blinded in your PoV. Is that what you call mental health?


----------



## KennyAtom (May 31, 2022)

V10lator said:


> Rest of the world doesn't seem to need that, so why do you?


Because we aren't the rest of the world, we are America.


V10lator said:


> Also what happens when somebody steals your gun and points in onto your head? How does the gun protect you now?


They'll be dead or just clinging onto life, bleeding out, before they even reach me. You don't rush a man with a gun and expect to live.


V10lator said:


> See, people like you argue against 99% of the world. Argue against reality. Still you think you're right. That's why a lot of people say it's useless talking to you: You aren't listening, are blinded in your PoV. Is that what you call mental health?


So you're calling me insane, delusional? Shame on you!

But in all seriousness though, they don't realize how we live, where we live. We use guns to protect ourselves, to live our lives. Let the rest of the world do their own stuff, we live how we live down here, and nothing will change it.


----------



## V10lator (May 31, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> Because we aren't the rest of the world, we are America.


So you can't even give a single example? Just "it is like it is so stop arguing! That's the god damn mur(der)ican way!!!" ?


KennyAtom said:


> and nothing will change it.


Cause you don't want the change. Well, as I said already:


V10lator said:


> can't help someone who doesn't want help.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 31, 2022)

V10lator said:


> So you can't even give a single example? Just "it is like it is so stop arguing! That's the god damn mur(der)ican way!!!" ?


Yes, because we murder everyone for having guns. Very true!


V10lator said:


> Cause you don't want the change. Well, as I said already:


Why do we need much change anyway? Background checks are better than nothing.


----------



## V10lator (May 31, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> Why do we need much change anyway? Background checks are better than nothing.


Do you even realise that most of these shooters stole the guns (from their parents, for example) ?

BTW, I forgot:


KennyAtom said:


> They'll be dead or just clinging onto life, bleeding out, before they even reach me. You don't rush a man with a gun and expect to live.


So you're one of these guys bathing and sleeping with his gun? You never ever put the gun out of your hands so it is absolutely impossible that somebody other could grab it? Not even your wife or kids?


----------



## KennyAtom (May 31, 2022)

V10lator said:


> Do you even realise that most of these shooters stole the guns (from their parents, for example) ?
> 
> BTW, I forgot:


No, that's on the parents. They're irresponsible fucking bastards who don't know the first fucking rule of gun safety. (DON'T KEEP GUNS IN REACH OF KIDS, KEEP THEM IN GUN SAFES UNLESS THEY'RE NEEDED OR YOU'RE USING THEM)


V10lator said:


> BTW, I forgot:
> 
> So you're one of these guys bathing and sleeping with his gun? You never ever put the gun out of your hands so it is absolutely impossible that somebody other could grab it? Not even your wife or kids?


Or, maybe, just maybe, I'm not the irresponsible bastard you're painting me as, and keep my guns in the gun safe, where they stay safe.


----------



## V10lator (May 31, 2022)

How does your gun protect you while beeing in a safe?


----------



## KennyAtom (May 31, 2022)

V10lator said:


> How does your gun protect you while beeing in a safe?


Maybe because when I hear a loud noise, I take it out? I don't go looking for trouble, and I've literally never been robbed before.

I'm sure the gun has helped quite a bit.


----------



## V10lator (May 31, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> Maybe because when I hear a loud noise, I take it out?


What when there is no such noise? What when you sleep in your garden, wake up and there's a stranger pointing a gun on you?



KennyAtom said:


> I've literally never been robbed before.


So what exactly do you try to protect from?



KennyAtom said:


> I'm sure the gun has helped quite a bit.


How? I mean how should a stranger wanting to rob you even know you have a gun in your safe?


----------



## osaka35 (May 31, 2022)

Okay, let's look at this from an objectives point of view. what is the US's objective?
   1) prevent mass shootings, prevent killings by police officers, and minimize accidental gun deaths
   2) ensure the rights detailed in the second amendment in the bill of rights is not infringed: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
   3) create a means to prosecute folks who put others at risk, or hurt others unnecessarily, and increase consequences to bad-actor actions

How do? Here's what's proposed, as far as i can remember
*-Mandatory training*
   1) Folks should be trained on how to operate a gun properly, with a focus on safety and expected protocol. Also how to defuse a situation, not escalate it, and how to properly assess a situation as well. Training would have to be done every so often. This would help with the accidental gun deaths, not so much the mass shooting
   2) Police would have more intense, extended training of the same. also make it on-going, if they're allowed to continue using guns and be allowed to do jobs other fields are better suited for.

*-Mental health*
   1) Placing a much larger focus on free mental healthcare, mental assessment, and baking in mental health education into public education. This has no down-sides, and can only help an innumerable amount of things in quality of life and life longevity, as well as help greatly with mass shootings. Since it's so obviously a win-win-win to dump money into this, we'll naturally not do this (that's the USA for ya).
   2) Mandatory mental health screening before purchasing a gun. This includes the police and military.

*-Gun Restrictions (the most controversial)*
   1) Restricting which guns can be sold to citizens, specifically ones that can shoot a certain amount of bullets within a certain amount of time, and ones that can reload within a certain amount of time
   2) have a limit to how many guns you can buy within a certain amount of time
   3) Gun registry, so any guns used in a crime can be tracked to its purchase (side-benefit of increases responsibility to keep track of your guns
   4) Wait-period before you can pick up a gun after purchase (to reduce impulse killing)
   5) Military-grade equipment should stop being sold to local police department.
   6) Just don't let cops use guns, or greatly reduce their ability to do so, or have actual responsibilities to misuse of guns.

This is what I've come across so far, i'm sure there's others.

_So, the questions are this:_
   1) Which combination of the above (or all?) will reduce gun deaths (police, mass shootings, etc) most effectively?
   2) What have other countries done, and have been the results (Canada, UK, japan, etc)?
   3) Which of the above conflict with the 2nd amendment? of those that do, how much do they do so? Is there a way to compromise?
   4) Does the 2nd amendment still apply to today's technology? If no, how do we adapt it? if yes, is there any room for compromise for the sake of human life?
   5) bird up!


My personal feelings aside, this summarizes my understanding of the issue.


----------



## Creamu (May 31, 2022)

Thanks for the summary and questions!


osaka35 said:


> _So, the questions are this:_
> 1) Which combination of the above (or all?) will reduce gun deaths (police, mass shootings, etc) most effectively?


Gun death will be prevented by returning to civilisational order. In the 50s america had children bringing guns to school for practice shooting. No school shootings happened.

Gun restrictions?
Bad solution, no guns but a society that is so deranged that it cannot allow for guns in the populus. Not a good solution.

Mental Health?
The psychological approach fails to prove itself effective. The problem is the fixation of psychology on patholigising indiviuals, while the issue is always the result of a greater whole.

Mandatory training?
This might or might not be more benefitial than doing nothing. It will not critically impact the situation.


osaka35 said:


> 2) What have other countries done, and have been the results (Canada, UK, japan, etc)?


Japan is still a quite homogenious and orderly country. UK has banned carrying butterknifes, while acid attacks are going on left and right. Canada I don't know about.


osaka35 said:


> 3) Which of the above conflict with the 2nd amendment? of those that do, how much do they do so? Is there a way to compromise?


There is no way to compromise, if you compromise on the 2nd, the whole thing will crumble. Its an intelligently put together constitution and you don't just doctor around with that.


osaka35 said:


> 4) Does the 2nd amendment still apply to today's technology? If no, how do we adapt it? if yes, is there any room for compromise for the sake of human life?


Yes, the 2nd amendment is ment to promote a principle not nostalgia.


osaka35 said:


> 5) bird up!


Bird up?


osaka35 said:


> My personal feelings aside, this summarizes my understanding of the issue.


Nicely done!


----------



## V10lator (May 31, 2022)

@osaka35 Great writeup, thanks. Now let me try to adapt these points to my country (germany) and see what the outcome is:


osaka35 said:


> Like driving or whatnot, folks would need to be trained in how to operate a gun properly, particularly safety and expected protocol. Also how to defuse a situation, not escalate, and how to properly assess a situation as well. Training would have to be done every so often to ensure proper usage and latest guidelines.


This is how we do it. Police, hunters, sport shooters & co are all trained. Thanks to that stolen weapons are extremely rare (like people keep their weapons in a safe).


osaka35 said:


> 2) Police would have more intense, extended training in the same, and make it on-going, if they're allowed to continue using guns


We have that, too, They need a good excuse for every fired bullet through (and that means more than two sentences. More like a full essay). Fire a warning bullet? Why? Where did you point to? Was there really no other way and so on and so forth. When we startet using tasers police officers overreacted with them, killing people by accident. This stopped real quick when we extended the same rules for these kind of weapons through.


osaka35 said:


> 1) Placing a much larger focus on free mental healthcare, mental assessment, and baking in mental health education into public education.


This sadly won't really help as again: Most people don't want help. Even with the best offers of healtcare they won't go to a terapist when having problems. I'm actually talking from self experience here.


osaka35 said:


> 2) Mandatory mental health screening before purchasing a gun. This includes the police and military.


We do this, too. Slightest sign of mental illness? No gun for you! It's not that all of us aren't allowed to own guns (everyone can be a sport shooter if he wants to, for example), it's just that most fall through these screenings.


osaka35 said:


> *-Gun Restrictions (the most controversial)*
> 1) Restricting which guns can be sold to citizens, specifically ones that can shoot a certain amount of bullets within a certain amount of time, and ones that can reload within a certain amount of time
> 2) have a limit to how many guns you can buy within a certain amount of time
> 3) Gun registry, so any guns used in a crime can be tracked to its purchase (side-benefit of increases responsibility to keep track of your guns
> ...


We have all of that. Police needs to have guns through. The responsibility is what stops them doing bs (see my above statement "they need a good excuse for every fired bullet", for example). No idea why amerians think these things are wrong.

Hope this helped a bit to answer the open questions.


----------



## osaka35 (May 31, 2022)

Creamu said:


> Mental Health?
> The psychological approach fails to prove itself effective. The problem is the fixation of psychology on patholigising indiviuals, while the issue is always the result of a greater whole.


How about an approach that's more general. things like...What mental health is, what can contribute to positive mental health (proper eating, exercise, personal meaning, etc), de-stigmatizing things like having feelings and consulting specialist, teaching related issues like consent, human rights, personal and social responsibilities, etc? 

tbh, i'm not sure how much it'll help the issue at hand, but i can't imagine it'd hurt. It'll help other areas, at the very least. Create a way for certain feelings and emotions to have another outlet. though that's not everything, it is something.


----------



## Creamu (May 31, 2022)

osaka35 said:


> How about an approach that's more general. things like...What mental health is, what can contribute to positive mental health (proper eating, exercise, personal meaning, etc), de-stigmatizing things like having feelings and consulting specialist, teaching related issues like consent, human rights, personal and social responsibilities, etc?


This would be an excellent solution. The problem is that the current american government is afraid or at least in contempt of its populus. Therefore it wants its populus to be stupid, unfit, deranged, and in conflict with eachother (low trust society)


osaka35 said:


> tbh, i'm not sure how much it'll help the issue at hand, but i can't imagine it'd hurt. It'll help other areas, at the very least. Create a way for certain feelings and emotions to have another outlet. though that's not everything, it is something.


Totally agree. The problem is that mental health is monopolized by psychology. Psychology by its very nature thinks it can solve problems individuals have in their brains. To make this plausible the domain of emotions and inner experience get caricaturized to a grotesque degree (Sigmund Freuds work especially). To change this would mean to revolutionise the modern american paradym.


----------



## AleronIves (May 31, 2022)

V10lator said:


> No idea why amerians think these things are wrong.


Polling suggests that Americans do support some restrictions on gun ownership. It's their elected representatives who do not. Until people start voting for candidates who support gun restrictions, nothing will change.


----------



## osaka35 (May 31, 2022)

Creamu said:


> Totally agree. The problem is that mental health is monopolized by psychology. Psychology by its very nature thinks it can solve problems individuals have in their brains. To make this plausible the domain of emotions and inner experience get caricaturized to a grotesque degree (Sigmund Freuds work especially). To change this would mean to revolutionise the modern american paradym.


it's weird how psychology can be taught, especially in k-12. it's sometimes presented as if Freud is somehow like...still used. His work was important mainly because it was the first attempt to apply scientific thinking to the workings of the mind. He wasn't particularly successful in actually *doing* this, but the concept of the mind being scientifically probe-able stuck. we've definitely come a long long long way since then.

psychological scientific research can help rule out things that don't work, and suggest things that might work. Dual processing is a thing, for example. And debunking the benefits of "learning styles". My field relies on and researches educational psychology (psychology as it regards to learning, social things, and related fields), and I've learned there are so many variables and interacting variables, it can be very difficult to suss out exactly what's going on. So when it comes to individual mental health, the important thing is to give the individual the tools to reflect, to assess, to plan, and to act. And sometimes medication, if you're a psychiatrist. The majority of the mental work has to be done by the person who has the brain, so public education would focus on understanding both this, the process, *modern* understanding of how the brain works, and mental tools.

At least, this is my understanding, though i'm not exactly in the field. Just a related field.


----------



## Creamu (May 31, 2022)

osaka35 said:


> it's weird how psychology can be taught, especially in k-12. it's sometimes presented as if Freud is somehow like...still used. His work was important mainly because it was the first attempt to apply scientific thinking to the workings of the mind. He wasn't particularly successful in actually *doing* this, but the concept of the mind being scientifically probable stuck. we've definitely come a long long long way since then.


The Phenomenon of Freudism is in general a bit puzzling to me. It's been a while, but reading his work directly you really get more of an idea who Freud was, rather than a scientific vision. It's a controversial subject to get into, but broadly speaking I am baffled how many psychologists and psychiatrists claim to be freudians. I am quite sure that most of them haven't read large parts of his body of work.


osaka35 said:


> psychological scientific research can help rule out things that don't work, and suggest things that might work. Dual processing, for example. And debunking the benefits of "learning styles". My field relies on and researches educational psychology (psychology as it regards to learning, social things, and related fields), and I've learned there are so many variables and interacting variables, it can be very difficult to suss out exactly what's going on. So when it comes to individual mental health, the important thing is to give the individual the tools to reflect, to assess, to plan, and to act. And sometimes medication, if you're a psychiatrist. The majority of the mental work has to be done by the person who has the brain, so public education would focus on understanding both this, the process, and the tools.
> 
> At least, this is my understanding, though i'm not exactly in the field. Just a related field.


There are alot of pitfalls in psychology. One is the idea of isolating things to the cognition of one entity. Another one is the discrimination/pathologising of different types of cognition. To built a framework to universially explain the cognition of all human beings is a reflection of the minds of the psychoanalytical movement. Instead I would suggest that pathologising cognitions does not advance anything. There is a certain hybris. All beings and their cognitions are the expression of evolutionary strategies, that are complex in a way that is not possible to be fully or even to a substantial amount grasped by the human mind. Psychology looks at evolutionary strategies and claims to have such a deep understanding of them to interfere. That is quite invasive, and ultimatly an expression of intolerance. All beings on earth have their nieche, their way to survive. In psychology we look at people who don't fit in a certain context, and ask for a solution by changing them. It's like training a dog to ride a bike.


----------



## tabzer (Jun 1, 2022)

Creamu said:


> This would be an excellent solution. The problem is that the current american government is afraid or at least in contempt of its populus. Therefore it wants its populus to be stupid, unfit, deranged, and in conflict with eachother (low trust society)



As long as the US Government exists, I want its citizens keep their guns.  This whole Robb Elementary school is a crime of convenience to the political establishment.   They had 4 years to stop the guy after he declared he was doing it.  It looks like they spent 4 years weighing the pros and cons.


----------



## Creamu (Jun 1, 2022)

tabzer said:


> As long as the US Government exists, I want its citizens keep their guns.  This whole Robb Elementary school is a crime of convenience to the political establishment.   They had 4 years to stop the guy after he declared he was doing it.  It looks like they spent 4 years weighing the pros and cons.


There is an argument to be made that the disorder before us is on them. America wasn't always such a mess and has progressed into this state. How come? Is there anyone in the government who sees him/her/theirself responsible?


----------



## erikas (Jun 1, 2022)

Is there any proof that gun control actually works?


----------



## stanleyopar2000 (Jun 1, 2022)

stanleyopar2000 said:


> "The problem is mental health"
> 
> --so will you help fund mental health and expand access to healthcare?--
> 
> "absolutely not."



Huh...I seemed to have "called it." : https://www.ksat.com/news/local/202...ng-211-million-from-mental-health-commission/


----------



## LoggerMan (Jun 1, 2022)

erikas said:


> Is there any proof that gun control actually works?


Well a lot of these teenage spree shooters are buying their guns legally. Look at Sandy Hook, the shooter was a shut in, hardly ever left his room, communicated to his own family through email. If there was strict gun control and his mother didn't have access to guns, then the shooter never would have had access to guns and the Sandy Hook shooting never would have happened. The shooter was anorexic, 112 pounds, a shut-in geek. He never would have gone to a shady black market to find guns. His mother, a gun enthusiast, was ironically his first victim btw.

The Texas shooter bought his guns legally online iirc. A painfully shy 18 year old with a strong stutter, also someone you wouldn't see browsing the stalls at your local black market. Gun control might not stop everyone from obtaining guns, but it would certainly have stopped these misfit spree killing teens from getting them.


----------



## AleronIves (Jun 1, 2022)

erikas said:


> Is there any proof that gun control actually works?


Other countries have much stricter gun control and much lower rates of gun ownership, and they don't have weekly mass shootings the way the US does.


----------



## V10lator (Jun 1, 2022)

erikas said:


> Is there any proof that gun control actually works?


To repeat what @AleronIves said: You find that prove in any country having gun control.



AleronIves said:


> Polling suggests that Americans do support some restrictions on gun ownership. It's their elected representatives who do not. Until people start voting for candidates who support gun restrictions, nothing will change.


Now that's fascinating, isn't it? Some pollings aside, when we look at the broader picture: Why aren't people starting to vote for others? Just my 2 cents but I think cause of:


tabzer said:


> As long as the US Government exists, I want its citizens keep their guns.


... So basically a catch 22.


----------



## DCarnage (Jun 1, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> the problem is mental health, not guns.
> 
> gun control just leaves us law abiding citizens without self defense, since criminals don't follow the law and will keep their guns.


This.


----------



## V10lator (Jun 1, 2022)

DCarnage said:


> This.


...has been debunked a thousand of times in this thread already.

//EDIT: Don't believe? So tell me one time you really needed your gun for self defense. You have a lot of criminals shooting others, how exactly did your gun stop this?


----------



## AleronIves (Jun 1, 2022)

V10lator said:


> Some pollings aside, when we look at the broader picture: Why aren't people starting to vote for others?


Republicans are much better at politics than Democrats are, especially when it comes to getting people to vote on a single issue. Republicans have long run for office on the platform of "Vote Republican, or the Democrats will take all your guns! O NOEZ!" It's been a very effective way to motivate people to vote Republican. Perhaps Democrats should start running on a platform of "Vote Democratic if you don't want your kids to die in a mass shooting!"

Many people will probably vote Republican solely on the abortion issue as well, so it'll be hard to get enough Democrats into Congress to be able to pass any meaningful gun control legislation.


----------



## DCarnage (Jun 1, 2022)

V10lator said:


> ...has been debunked a thousand of times in this thread already.
> 
> //EDIT: Don't believe? So tell me one time you really needed your gun for self defense. You have a lot of criminals shooting others, how exactly did your gun stop this?


Who in their right mind would shoot kids for reasons like this? Yes crazy people. I have guns for self defense, I have had many druggies test my house and property. If I face them without a weapon, they try to overpower me, when I face them with a gun, they f off and never come back to raid my house.


----------



## V10lator (Jun 1, 2022)

@AleronIves I see. So might the real problem be americans seeing democrats and republicans, black and white only? I don't really know how the system works in america but can't really believe there are just two parties and nothing in between.



DCarnage said:


> I have had many druggies test my house and property. If I face them without a weapon, they try to overpower me


So you need better police and, now that might shock you, better gun-control so these criminals can't get their guns anywhere.

I said it multiple times already: Your country f****d itself up with these pro-gun laws. It won't be easy and take a lot of time to solve that mess you did but none the less there are solutions. You just need to start somewhere and then stay on track.


----------



## DCarnage (Jun 1, 2022)

V10lator said:


> @AleronIves I see. So might the real problem be americans seeing democrats and republicans, black and white only? I don't really know how the system works in america but can't really believe there are just two parties and nothing in between.
> 
> 
> So you need better police and, now that might shock you, better gun-control so these criminals can't get their guns anywhere.
> ...


Agreed, it would take many decades and police reform but I can't rely on our authorities to keep my family safe. Do you live in the US? Shits f'd up here.


----------



## V10lator (Jun 1, 2022)

DCarnage said:


> Do you live in the US?


No, I don't. I'm from germany but a lot of my friends live in the US nowadays. That's off-topic through.

Glad at least one of the pro-gun people agrees that the solution is not having more and more guns (really, some of the people in this thread sound like "you think the weapon in my hand might be bad? So I need another one to protect myself from that bad gun") but change the system from the ground. 

//EDIT: Not directed to you but I think some people still didn't understand: We have a lot of guns in germany, too... like:

Police officers have weapons.
Hunters have weapons.
Private security guards have weapons.
Sport shooters have weapons.
"Schiesstand" ("firing range" in case the translation is correctly) visitors have weapons (and a Schiesstand is deeply coupled to bavarian culture).
Hell, I have a gun shop and a "Schiesstand" right above the corner. That's really nothing unsusal in germany... But we have a lot of laws about weapon training, preconditions you need to pass and repeat continuously before/when getting a weapon (psycological screening) and stuff like that... We basically have everything from this post: https://gbatemp.net/threads/about-the-texas-massacre-and-easy-access-to-guns.612797/post-9840452 ... And it works! Yea, 99,99% of people don't get a weapon cause they can't pass the preconditions but that's exactly the point: Most people are, excuse my wording, too stupid to handle guns. @KennyAtom like you said: Many people in the US don't have their guns in the gun safe. We won't hande guns to people like that...

//EDIT: But to make this clear: Here in germany you fail the preconditions when you say "I need a weapon to protect myself". That's no valid reason to have a gun!


----------



## DCarnage (Jun 1, 2022)

V10lator said:


> No, I don't. I'm from germany but a lot of my friends live in the US nowadays. That's off-topic through.
> 
> Glad at least one of the pro-gun people agrees that the solution is not having more and more guns (really, some of the people in this thread sound like "you think the weapon in my hand might be bad? So I need another one to protect myself from that bad gun") but change the system from the ground.


I grew up in a place where I was shot at twice before I was 10. My best friend which was a peaceful Jehovah's Witness was shot in the head for the $2.50 in his pocket. I moved to a place where we didn't have to worry about such things because everyone kept each other in check with guns and threats of violence. Do I want to live like this? Hell no but unfortunately that's the way it is here. Drugs and mental illness (mostly cause by drugs) has made it this way. If we could all live in peace without violence, that would be awesome. School shootings piss me off beyond belief and this last one hit hard... I don't know what else to say. Thank you V10lator, you're a great person, much love.


----------



## V10lator (Jun 1, 2022)

DCarnage said:


> Do I want to live like this? Hell no but unfortunately that's the way it is here. Drugs and mental illness (mostly cause by drugs) has made it this way.


That's really sad to hear. On the other side we have the same (drugs & mental illnes) over here but, well, we deal differently with these things.



DCarnage said:


> Thank you V10lator, you're a great person, much love.


Thanks for the glad words but I'm drug addicted and mentally ill...
I'll talk really, really open now: When I was younger there where thoughts like doing massacres. I don't think like that anymore but around 15 years ago there where situations where I just hated getting bullied, hated society... So much that I thought killing these "idiots" and taking myself down with them would be a good thing for the world. Now that I'm older I'm glad we have gun controls and stuff like that cause, well, do I really need to say more? That's what I meaned when I told "such people won't go to a therapist even with the best healhcare available, I'm actually talking from self experience here"...


----------



## DCarnage (Jun 1, 2022)

V10lator said:


> That's really sad to hear. On the other side we have the same (drugs & mental illnes) over here but, well, we deal differently with these things.
> 
> 
> Thanks for the glad words but I'm drug addicted and mentally ill...
> I'll talk really, really open now: When I was younger there where thoughts like doing massacres. I don't think like that anymore but around 15 years ago there where situations where I just hated getting bullied, hated society... So much that I thought killing these "idiots" and taking myself down with them would be a good thing for the world. Now that I'm older I'm glad we have gun controls and stuff like that cause, well, do I really need to say more? That's what I meaned when I told "such people won't go to a therapist even with the best healhcare available"...


I mean, I can't say I wasn't much different. I was bullied and beat up, there were gang members in my school and if I stood up to them, they would catch me after school with a group of people and kick my ass and put a gun to my head. What do you do? I wanted to go to school and "take care of them". I didn't... I took the bitch way out and moved. I do wish that my country took care of things differently but we are very "left and right". Personally, I'm in the middle but both side attack me for that. Most of the time I keep quiet but sometimes a person just wants to be heard..


----------



## V10lator (Jun 1, 2022)

@DCarnage You need to be heared! Don't keep quiet but tell everyone about your experiences! I know how cliche this sounds but: Be the change you want to see in the world. Make the people aware that there's more than just two directions. If you reach just one person with this that's a win!

Also what you did wasn't a "bitch way out", it was you beeing strong!


----------



## DCarnage (Jun 1, 2022)

V10lator said:


> @DCarnage You need to be heared! Don't keep quiet but tell everyone about your experiences! I know how cliche this sounds but: Be the change you want to see in the world. Make the people aware that there's more than just two directions. If you reach just one person with this that's a win!
> 
> Also what you did wasn't a "bitch way out", it was you beeing strong!


OMG, you're f'n awesome! Hey, we disagreed at first but you're one of my favorite people here now. I believe we had a good conversation and I have much love and respect for you.


----------



## Valwinz (Jun 1, 2022)

Now the police department instead of going in and helping those kids decided to stay outside and stare does not want to help with the investigation into what happened.


----------



## AleronIves (Jun 1, 2022)

V10lator said:


> Also what you did wasn't a "bitch way out", it was you beeing strong!


There is sort of a cultural lie in the US that you always have to "stand your ground", or you're a coward or a quitter. In truth, there are some situations that you can't fix, and if you stay, you'll die (either physically or at least emotionally), so the only mature and responsible action to take is to leave.


----------



## tabzer (Jun 1, 2022)

V10lator said:


> ... So basically a catch 22.



That's a way to look at it.  I look at it as America being a war-industry complex that I don't want to empower.  If struggles in its own territory prevents or hinders it from perpetuating those struggles onto the global front, then I am "America first".

I don't think it's natural for people to live through demoralizing conditions and consider mass shootings as a method of maintaining a sense of control.  However, it's becoming more "normal" in places where it's politically divisive.  Being pushed around into choosing black vs white, red vs blue, pro vs pro...  "Choose your own adventure tyranny".  



AleronIves said:


> "Vote Democratic if you don't want your kids to die in a mass shooting!"



Considering the context of what we know about the recent situation, that reads like a threat.


----------



## omgcat (Jun 1, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> View attachment 311947
> 
> this meme is funny, but also true at the same time. they won't go home, they just see kids as an easy target since there's no one with a gun to protect them.


or the people who do these attacks want to die, so they will be emboldened to attack areas with armed personnel.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 1, 2022)

omgcat said:


> or the people who do these attacks want to die, so they will be emboldened to attack areas with armed personnel.


AKA Suicide by Cop.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 1, 2022)




----------



## KennyAtom (Jun 1, 2022)

exactly why that police force should be fired and investigated.

if you don't want to risk your life to save civilians, you shouldn't have became a cop.


----------



## tabzer (Jun 1, 2022)

Allegedly there is a video.  But the best we have is that someone says that there is a video.  New story is that it was shut but didn't lock. 

Seems they'll keep changing the story as they examine the "evidence".  Meanwhile, MSM gets caught hosting interviews from crisis actors, and all facts about anything happening are hearsay.

Moral of the story: trust your media and trust your government.  This story reeks of b-grade media theater.  The only thing that gave it credibility in the first place are the same people caught lying about it.


----------



## Marc_LFD (Jun 1, 2022)

Ted Cruz blamed games for shootings.

Seems like that's a thing with Boomers in general.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 1, 2022)

Marc_78065 said:


> Seems like that's a thing with Boomers and lying imbeciles in general.


FTFY


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 1, 2022)

More idiot ideas from lying RepubliKKKunts.


----------



## KennyAtom (Jun 1, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> More idiot ideas from lying RepubliKKKunts.


This is why i wish it wasn't just RepubliCANTs and DemocRATS. (See what I did there? I trolled both parties.)

I'm more on the moderate right, and it feels as if both parties are descending into the far left and far right, yet I can't do anything since a vote for a third party candidate is like voting for someone who already ran for two terms, there's no point since they cannot make it into office.


----------



## KennyAtom (Jun 1, 2022)

There's Nothing "Common Sense" about Gun Control | Common Sense Soapbox

This one is also a pretty good video that goes against gun control.


----------



## smf (Jun 1, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> someone who just wanted to own a gun? I'll bite.


You don't just want to own a gun.

Just owning a gun doesn't help. You want to shoot someone.

If you wanted to protect your family, then get rid of all guns.

Your gaslighting won't work on me either.


----------



## KennyAtom (Jun 1, 2022)

smf said:


> You don't just want to own a gun.
> 
> Just owning a gun doesn't help. You want to shoot someone.
> 
> ...


Gaslighting? What?

I literally called you out for making death scenarios for my death when trying to defend my family with a gun, and I'M gaslighting YOU?

give me a fucking break.


----------



## smf (Jun 1, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Considering the context of what we know about the recent situation, that reads like a threat.


No more of a threat than republicans saying what will happen if you vote democrat.


----------



## smf (Jun 1, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> Gaslighting? What?
> 
> I literally called you out for making death scenarios for my death when trying to defend my family with a gun, and I'M gaslighting YOU?
> 
> give me a fucking break.


Called me out? I was pointing out why your stupid plan was stupid.

If you don't like it, don't have a stupid plan.

You think other people will respect you with a gun? No, they will get a bigger gun.

Gaslighting them won't work on them either.


----------



## KennyAtom (Jun 1, 2022)

smf said:


> Called me out? I was pointing out why your stupid plan was stupid.
> 
> If you don't like it, don't have a stupid plan.
> 
> ...


Again, calling out someone for making up death scenarios isn't gasllighting, just as much as saying you had sex with someone's mother isn't gaslighting.

You're just being really fucking stupid at this point, I'm sorry to devolve to stupid insults, but you are being really fucking stupid right now.


----------



## smf (Jun 1, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> Again, calling out someone for making up death scenarios isn't gasllighting,


You are making up scenarios why you need a gun, i'm making up scenarios why it makes your life more dangerous.

This faux outrage is gaslighting. Maybe it's so ingrained you don't know you're doing it.

Does voting republican make you dumb, or does being dumb make you vote republican.


----------



## KennyAtom (Jun 1, 2022)

smf said:


> You are making up scenarios why you need a gun, i'm making up scenarios why it makes your life more dangerous.
> 
> This faux outrage is gaslighting.


What? Are you fucking...what??

There's literally no point in arguing, you don't know the definition of gaslighting.


----------



## smf (Jun 1, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> What? Are you fucking...what??
> 
> There's literally no point in arguing, you don't know the definition of gaslighting.


I do, it's what you're doing.


----------



## KennyAtom (Jun 1, 2022)

looking it up on google, "manipulate (someone) by psychological means into questioning their own sanity."

How am I using psychological means, or trying to make people question their sanity?


smf said:


> I do, it's what you're doing.


Ok that just confirms you're really fucking stupid and I don't have to listen to you.


----------



## smf (Jun 1, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> looking it up on google, "manipulate (someone) by psychological means into questioning their own sanity."
> 
> How am I using psychological means, or trying to make people question their sanity?
> 
> Ok that just confirms you're really fucking stupid and I don't have to listen to you.


Because you think it's ok to shoot someone with a gun to protect your family, but when I point out the scenarios where that has the opposite effect and doesn't work then you make out that I'm morally wrong.

Even though owning guns to shoot people is morally wrong.

And yeah, you are gaslighting. On purpose & I am pretty sure you know you're doing it.


----------



## KennyAtom (Jun 1, 2022)

smf said:


> Because you think it's ok to shoot someone with a gun to protect your family, but when I point out the scenarios where that has the opposite effect and doesn't work then you make out that I'm morally wrong.
> 
> Even though owning guns to shoot people is morally wrong.


What? When did I state it was only for shooting people?

I swear I said range as well, now you're trying to gaslight me by making me question my own sanity.


smf said:


> And yeah, you are gaslighting. On purpose & I am pretty sure you know you're doing it.


To use a method from your side, ok troll, I won't listen to you since you are trolling and are a troll.

But in all seriousness though, I ain't gaslighting anyone, you're just scrambling for excuses.


----------



## V10lator (Jun 1, 2022)

smf said:


> If you don't like it, don't have a stupid plan.


Sorry to say but you can't argue with @KennyAtom . Not because your arguments are invali but because he's so blinded / brainwashed, he'll never wake up from his wet gun dreams.
Trust me, I tried to have a talk with this guy about the same topic, too. Even when you break down every single arguments he'll just say "this is murica, so shut up stupid outlander" and stuff like that. Better talk to people who are still able to think about what you say.


----------



## KennyAtom (Jun 1, 2022)

V10lator said:


> Sorry to say but you can't argue with @KennyAtom . Not because your arguments are invali but because he's so blinded / brainwashed, he'll never wake up from his wet gun dreams.
> Trust me, I tried to have a talk with this guy about the same topic, too. Even when you break down every single arguments he'll just say "this is murica, so shut up stupid outlander" and stuff like that. Better talk to people who are still able to think about what you say.


and now I'm "blinded" and "brainwashed".

Of course I am, since apparently someone cannot have a different opinion without being completely stupid.


----------



## V10lator (Jun 1, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> since apparently someone cannot have a different opinion without being completely stupid.


We had this kind of talks already. You having opinions against reality and stuff like that... Can't remember?

So yea, when you

Try to argue against reality.
Have an opinion different than 99.99% of the world.
Can't even argue anymore at some point but still think you're right so you start to insult the ones arguing against you instead of, well arguing.
Can't even remember what you said one day ago.
And so on and so forth...
you're either a troll or stupid. Don't like that conclusion? Then stop talking and open your mind.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 1, 2022)

V10lator said:


> We had this kind of talks already. You having opinions against reality and stuff like that... Can't remember?
> 
> So yea, when you
> 
> ...


The patience of a saint.


----------



## Creamu (Jun 1, 2022)

Can't we come to reason?


----------



## Dr_Faustus (Jun 1, 2022)

Nikokaro said:


> In my country we remain amazed how, despite yet another school massacre in the United States, the general opinion and the people do not put any serious and concrete pressure on the policy to change the gun law. It seems unbelievable to us. Is it possible that selfishness, fear of the other, and of losing one's possessions is more important than public safety and the protection of the weak and minorities? Is it possible that they still do not understand the danger of giving easy access to weapons to the first frustrated, deranged, paranoid, insane person who, having already decided to throw away his own life, does so by dragging as many innocents as possible into the abyss with him? Is this the celebrated American freedom of which they are so proud?
> 
> I would like to point out to them that in addition to the freedom "to" (to accumulate possessions, to be ambitious, to impose oneself, to have prestige, to enjoy...) there is also a more delicate, more inner and far more important freedom "from" (from the past, from prejudices, from selfishness and closure, from greed and anger, etc. ) and the latter can be maintained only by not spreading fear of the neighbor, the different, the foreigner and the exaltation of self-defense, but by developing the system of social protection, inclusion and welcome, and by avoiding ghettoizing, excluding, mocking, and thus bringing to exasperation and despair the different, the strange, the fragile, the mentally ill, etc.
> 
> ...



The problem is more complex than just not caring about it. Between a statement of ownership being a right in the original constitution and there being a large ended group with extremely powerful lobbying force and government ties the idea of any form of gun control even in a reasonable sense is just not rational to those who really like guns. You can argue about mental illness, you can talk about increasing the process of ownership to have more mental health assurance screenings, you can add electronic bio-scan locks onto your guns to act as a form of safety lock, you can add better tracking of guns, parts sales, you can add education, etc. All will be rejected without question as any of it will be seen as an attack on their freedoms to own guns. I shit you not.

Shits so bad with some sects of gun owners that if so much as a democrat runs for office they will start panicking as if it will be the end of their days, that they will have cops bust down their doors and take away all of their guns and make it so that only the police and the military can have guns, spinning insane logic about needing to defend yourself when they will come knocking on your door next kind of crap. Its all just paranoia and being so removed from the larger world of issues that they can't see anything beyond their own desires and the small world they live in.

With that being said I do not oppose gun ownership at all, I am all for it and have nothing against firearms or owning them. I think the idea of us ever being a gun free country is a nigh-impossibility as its seemingly in our backbone to be grateful to own firearms. But I am also for newer, refined and stricter laws on gun control that prevent second hand ownership being such an easy thing to do, adding security measures that would tie a gun to its owner any ONLY its owner, and finally stricter background checks that include a more detailed mental screening to ensure that the person buying is not another crazy ass bastard. These all can be done but only if the biggest lobbying force is removed from a position of influence. It does not help either that these people can tend to almost militarize their fans/members in a way that it would make the capital riots look like a peaceful protest.

Its all about logic and reason vs. culture and paranoia. Gun owners exist either because they find them fascinating, they play for sport, they are a hunter, self defense, or "because they think the world is going to end around them and they need to be ready to take on the world." Unfortunately the latter is relevant in a lot of people. 



blumbus said:


> i hate how every so often this song from 2002 becomes relevant again



Nah bro, you want a good song about a shooting, this is the primo shit right here.



I play this for every time a shooting breaks out. Timeless really..


----------



## KennyAtom (Jun 1, 2022)

V10lator said:


> you're either a troll or stupid. Don't like that conclusion? Then stop talking and open your mind.


Yes, because how dare I have a different opinion.


----------



## V10lator (Jun 1, 2022)

@Dr_Faustus Great writeup! I didn't know it was that badly before reading this thread but yea, you seem to be absolutely right.

Do guys like @KennyAtom who say things like "when they take our guns the bad people will buy new one from the black market" even realise that most of the black market guns are stolen ones from "legit" gun owners? There don't seem to be black market gun issues in other countries. So they are the ones feeding the black market, they are the ones giving bad guys what they need and still they argue like that? @KennyAtom this isn't about opinions but facts. You not seeing the full picture and arguing against reality is exactly what I mean with "brainwashed".


----------



## CPG_ (Jun 1, 2022)

Dr_Faustus said:


> Nah bro, you want a good song about a shooting, this is the primo shit right here.
> 
> 
> 
> I play this for every time a shooting breaks out. Timeless really..



What can I say, I like busdriver


----------



## KennyAtom (Jun 1, 2022)

Look, I'll be completely honest. This world is changing, and I'm scared of that. I'm scared that if I lose my guns, they'll come for me next. I'm scared that if I lose my guns, I'll be an easier target. I'm scared that if I lose my guns, I'm boned, fucked, whatever they say nowadays. 

I'm scared of change, and enacting more gun control is changing shit I used to know. I'll probably be able to get through it since the gun control laws most likely won't remove my current guns, but I'm fucking scared, man. I don't know what'll come next, and that shit is what freaks me out.


----------



## Creamu (Jun 1, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> Look, I'll be completely honest. This world is changing, and I'm scared of that. I'm scared that if I lose my guns, they'll come for me next. I'm scared that if I lose my guns, I'll be an easier target. I'm scared that if I lose my guns, I'm boned, fucked, whatever they say nowadays.
> 
> I'm scared of change, and enacting more gun control is changing shit I used to know. I'll probably be able to get through it since the gun control laws most likely won't remove my current guns, but I'm fucking scared, man. I don't know what'll come next, and that shit is what freaks me out.


You should be!


----------



## V10lator (Jun 1, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> I'm scared of change


And this is the real problem! Change doesn't mean worlds end. Just try to talk about your fears to a therapist.

Also yes, with strict gun-laws there might be more crime in the short run. Nobody argues against that. In the long run things will get better through. Did anything get better with more and more guns? No, it's getting more and more worse, too, even in the long run... And how did private guns prevent the texas massacre? They didn't? Oh well...


----------



## Creamu (Jun 1, 2022)

V10lator said:


> And this is the real problem! Change doesn't mean worlds end. Just try to talk about your fears to a therapist.
> 
> Also yes, with strict gun-laws there might be more crime in the short run. Nobody argues against that. In the long run things will get better through. Did anything get better with more and more guns? No, it's getting more an more worse, too... And how did private guns prevent the texas massacre? It didn't? Oh well...


What if the government turns against its own population?


----------



## V10lator (Jun 1, 2022)

Creamu said:


> What if the government turns against its own population?


You're part of NATO and stuff like that, aren't you? So we will help you in such a case. Also civil wars work in countries with gun laws, too. Again: Change is not the end of the world. Just have a bit of trust...

Lastly: Why do you have so much fear about the government you voted? Why not vote something you don't have to be afraid of?

//EDIT: For the last question please don't say voting something other would be a wasted vote. Cause that's a catch 22: It's only wasted as long as everyone votes the same old bs. We had the same in germany and guess what? We managed to vote for a completely new party this time!


----------



## Creamu (Jun 1, 2022)

V10lator said:


> You're part of NATO and stuff like that, aren't you? So we will help you in such a case.


When is the help coming?


V10lator said:


> Also civil wars work in countries with gun laws, too. Again: Change is not the end of the world. Just have a bit of trust...


No, don't have trust. Remember people who are successful in gaining power aren't of the empathical variety.


V10lator said:


> Lastly: Why do you have so much fear about the government you voted? Why not vote something you don't have to be afraid of?


Because its just hegelian dialectic. There is no choice.


----------



## V10lator (Jun 1, 2022)

Creamu said:


> When is the help coming?


If you need it, so probably never 



Creamu said:


> Remember people who are successful in gaining power aren't of the empathical variety.


So why isn't any other democratic county turning against its civilians? Also remember that it's not the politicans having (gun)power but the military. The military can choose to not listen to government / turn against them, too.



Creamu said:


> There is no choice.


There is, you just can't believe it.


----------



## Creamu (Jun 1, 2022)

V10lator said:


> If you need it, so probably never


That's what I've thought


V10lator said:


> So why isn't any other democratic county turning against its civilians?


Read Theodor Adorno Authoritarian personality.


V10lator said:


> Also remember that it's not the politicans having (gun)power but the military. The military can choose to not listen to government / turn against them, too.


If you have to rely on that, things are looking grim.


V10lator said:


> There is, you just can't believe it.


No. The ancient greek population understood this trick, now people are so uneducated that they don't even know basic mythology.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 1, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> Look, I'll be completely honest. This world is changing, and I'm scared of that. I'm scared that if I lose my guns, they'll come for me next. I'm scared that if I lose my guns, I'll be an easier target. I'm scared that if I lose my guns, I'm boned, fucked, whatever they say nowadays.
> 
> I'm scared of change, and enacting more gun control is changing shit I used to know. I'll probably be able to get through it since the gun control laws most likely won't remove my current guns, but I'm fucking scared, man. I don't know what'll come next, and that shit is what freaks me out.


Honesty appreciated.


----------



## V10lator (Jun 1, 2022)

Creamu said:


> Read Theodor Adorno Authoritarian personality.


Why? How does that answer my question in any way?



Creamu said:


> If you have to rely on that, things are looking grim.


But you don't have to rely on that. How many civilians do you have and how many military is there? Remember riots in the EU cause of the Corona lockdowns and stuff? We where at a point police and military resisted [EDIT] and it was just like 5% of civilians rioting[/EDIT] ! We didn't have/used guns and we're all still alive.



Creamu said:


> No. The ancient greek population understood this trick, now people are so uneducated that they don't even know basic mythology.


We're not in ancient greek anymore. Real world examples show it works: Just look at any democratic country beside the US.


----------



## Creamu (Jun 1, 2022)

V10lator said:


> Why? How does that answer my question in any way?


It will not only answer your question, it will blow you away. Make sure you get the original text, I assure you, you will be thankful to have read it.


V10lator said:


> But you don't have to rely on that. How many civilians do you have and how many military is there? Remember riots in the EU cause of the Corona lockdowns and stuff? We where at a point police and military resisted! We didn't have/use guns and we're all still alive.


If you give up your defenses you will end up in a world of shit. Some need to learn this on a personal basis to understand. Rights are only real if you are able to enforce them under whatever circumstances.


V10lator said:


> We're not in ancient greek anymore. Real world examples show it works: Just look at any democratic country beside the US.


Unfortunatly we aren't because people back then were more clued in to simple facts like the hermetic game of 'democracy'.


----------



## V10lator (Jun 1, 2022)

Creamu said:


> It will not only answer your question, it will blow you away. Make sure you get the original text, I assure you, you will be thankful to have read it.


It explains your PoV but my question was "So why isn't any other democratic county turning against its civilians?".


Creamu said:


> If you give up your defenses you will end up in a world of shit. Some need to learn this on a personal basis to understand. Rights are only real if you are able to enforce them under whatever circumstances.


And we where able to enforce our laws without guns and without deads. Why should it be different for you? Again: Police and Military resisted! Politicans saw whole EU falling (and with that I mean civilians overtaking military and government) so they did what we wanted cause else they would have lost the power they want so much.



Creamu said:


> Unfortunatly we aren't because people back then were more clued in to simple facts like the hermetic game of 'democracy'.


So your muricans must be real special kind of people when things working anywhere else can't work for you. Keep living in history instead of the present if you like that but if so don't argue about present problems.

//EDIT: For this EU/Corona thing there are quotes from high police and military people like:
"How should we arrest thousands of people in a single city? We neither have enough space in jails nor enough cars for all the transports. So we do nothing"
"There are more people on the streets than police officers. We can't stop them no matter what. If politicans want to do something against that they should go on the streets trying to stop them"
"We don't have enough man power nor enough bullets to shoot all them down. Also if we did there would be even more people going onto the streets, so problems would get worse. Better for us to not interact"
...


----------



## Dr_Faustus (Jun 1, 2022)

V10lator said:


> @Dr_Faustus Great writeup! I didn't know it was that badly before reading this thread but yea, you seem to be absolutely right.
> 
> Do guys like @KennyAtom who say things like "when they take our guns the bad people will buy new one from the black market" even realise that most of the black market guns are stolen ones from "legit" gun owners? There don't seem to be black market gun issues in other countries. So they are the ones feeding the black market, they are the ones giving bad guys what they need and still they argue like that? @KennyAtom this isn't about opinions but facts. You not seeing the full picture and arguing against reality is exactly what I mean with "brainwashed".


I mean, there are global gun black markets yes, but these tend to be weapons from either old military/war zones and/or surplus. A lot of the shit you see globally are typically taken from fallen soldiers and owned for themselves or sold off to markets where guns would profit higher in areas where the laws on them would be less than free. The black markets in the US tend to focus more on the grey area ownership of artillery such as much higher end weaponry (tank piercing, anti-aircraft, heavy assault, etc.) as well as mods for existing legal guns that would make them very much illegal to own and operate. Most small scale resale weapons that happen illegally are not as prominent on popular black markets but may exist in a regional underground market since most common criminals are probably not intelligent enough to search on the dark web for these things, instead they will get the proper word of mouth about a guy that knows a guy who can "hook you up".


That said technology such as the "Smart Gun" is supposed to greatly alleviate this problem by making gun ownership tied directly to the owner, making separation almost impossible even by standard hacker methods. If stolen it would be rendered useless in the hands of a second hand owner. Think basically the same tech that protects your phone from being used by being stolen and resold. 

Of course, despite this technology being a real and viable thing, a particular group of people really did not like the ramifications of such things, and as a result the technology was never made available for the consumer market end. Don't you just love that?



KennyAtom said:


> Look, I'll be completely honest. This world is changing, and I'm scared of that. I'm scared that if I lose my guns, they'll come for me next. I'm scared that if I lose my guns, I'll be an easier target. I'm scared that if I lose my guns, I'm boned, fucked, whatever they say nowadays.
> 
> I'm scared of change, and enacting more gun control is changing shit I used to know. I'll probably be able to get through it since the gun control laws most likely won't remove my current guns, but I'm fucking scared, man. I don't know what'll come next, and that shit is what freaks me out.


The way I see it is, while there is a lot to be scared of in the world and the change in it, there are unfortunately forces of change you can and cannot control. No instance would the US government find reason to take anyone guns away unless they think you are plotting a sort of "Waco Situation" which even then that ended up blowing up in the governments faces big time. 

If the government really wanted to take power away from its people, it would not matter if you had no guns or if you lived in a house with a weapons system that could disintegrate anyone in a 3 mile range of you, *the government will find a way to get to you and will win*. I do not mean that as a taunt or a challenge, its just that we are literally the biggest spending country when it comes to military and defense budget. We spend on shit that is not even known to us because its hidden black projects R&D shit. We were the first ones to split the atom and thought to make a nice explosive device out of it to send to our enemies. We have robot airplanes that we can remote control from the comfort of our computer that can be armed and strike down any buildings without effort. We can make weapons that shoot scrap metal out at speeds faster than any bullet and are experimenting on things from waveforms and light to see how we can use those to destroy and harm at impressive efficiency. Simply said if the government wanted to, really REALLY wanted to go after its own gun owning people, it can do so and probably succeed to do so with minimal losses on their end. Its a mentality not simply built on paranoia, but a fallacy that somehow, they (the people) can somehow win against the biggest funded military force and technology in the world. The only reason why this does not happen is because there is no reason to and because your rights are protected as long as you play by the rules the country has to give. It's simple as that.

Change comes in many ways, but the biggest changes that you should be afraid of most are the ones that happen to yourself and those close to you. There is no greater fear than those you may lose over the span of time and your own degrading health, unable to change the flow of events due to just how shitty the healthcare system is. Eventually you have to change the way you eat and live just to accommodate these changes, and to "hopefully" get to live long enough through it before that too ceases to be. 

If I had to choose between being afraid to have something taken away from me, or the fear of losing my loved ones due to poor health and my own declining health that terrifies me to no end and I can't change for the better. I'd always be afraid of the latter more.

All I am trying to say here is we should be doing more to help each other and our fellow neighbor more than trying to weaponize ourselves to the point that we would kill our neighbor before they even had a word come out of their mouth out of paranoia. The world is hell for everyone as it is, no need to make it worse.


----------



## Creamu (Jun 1, 2022)

V10lator said:


> It explains your PoV but my question was "So why isn't any other democratic county turning against its civilians?".


If you don't want to read it, maybe you will be willing to watch this:



V10lator said:


> And we where able to enforce our laws without guns and without deads. Why should it be different for you?


Because 'we' were able to live with children bringing guns to school for target practice in the 50s. Now this is not possible. What has been done to the american populus since?


V10lator said:


> Again: Police and Military resisted! Politicans saw whole EU falling (and with that I mean civilians overtaking military and government) so they did what we wanted cause else they would have lost the power they want so much.


You give up your defenses. You do you. I will keep mine.


V10lator said:


> So your muricans must be real special kind of people when things working anywhere else can't work for you. Keep living in history instead of the present if you like that but if so don't argue about present problems.


I appreachiate discussing with you, but this is not an intelligent position.


----------



## V10lator (Jun 1, 2022)

Creamu said:


> If you don't want to read it, maybe you will be willing to watch this:



Need to go out with my dog, so will watch this later. Anyway, the small things I readed from it don't answer my questions but are the cause of your fear.


Creamu said:


> Because 'we' were able to live with children bringing guns to school for target practice in the 50s.


Really? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States_(before_2000) ... Also there where probably more in the past than stated there but things wheren't as connected as they are today, so such news stayed in small areas and got forgotten.
Also I already asked (not to you through) how does making scools to prisions help the mental health of the kids? Threat them like potential shooters and they will become ones.


Creamu said:


> You give up your defenses. You do you. I will keep mine.


What I try to say is: We didn't give up our defenses. We are more powerfull than police and miitary if we want to.


----------



## Creamu (Jun 1, 2022)

V10lator said:


> Need to go out with my dog, so will watch this later. Anyway, the small things I readed from it don't answer my questions but are the cause of your fear.


Watch the video. If you like the video, read the book in full.


V10lator said:


> Really? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States_(before_2000) ...


If you define one on one conflict as school shootings okay. I would argue that school shootings have a different meaning these days especially in context of this thread. You did not have "massacres" like the one discussed in this thread at all.


V10lator said:


> Also there where probably more in the past than stated there but things wheren't as connected as they are today, so such news stayed in small areas and got forgotten.


A lets say 'school massacre' would have blown people away back then and there are archives of newspapers. You can doulbe the count and still have more school shootings in a month these days than you had in a decade back then.


V10lator said:


> Also I already asked (not to you through) how does making scools to prisions help the mental health of the kids?


Are you suggesting that 1950s american schools were prisions? If you read Foucault you will see the schools and mental health instituions were developed by experimenting,researching and developing prisons. So prisons are the foundation of school anyway, just as a sidenote.


V10lator said:


> Threat them like potential shooters and they will become ones.


The treatment of kids these days is burtal in many ways, has anyone voted for this. The answer is no.


V10lator said:


> What I try to say is: We didn't give up our defenses. We are more powerfull than police and miitary if we want to.


What is 'we' in this case? In general, if you think you can give up on your defenses you are bound to end up in a very unfortunate position. This is just a basic truth of nature. If you are arguing that you are as powerful against a military force with or without weaponary, I dont know what to tell you.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 1, 2022)

Creamu said:


> What if the government turns against its own population?


At that point, honestly, there's not much hope for any blue collar citizen. Pro gun "doomsday preppers" are quick to comment how they'll go toe to toe with the militia should it come beating down their door, with their glocks and their sawed off's and their hunting rifles, and somehow don't seem to realize that when the militia comes, they'll have tanks, and drones, and tactics, and bio-chemical warfare, and so on. They're so quick to die to protect their guns, even at the cost of their own family. It's ludicrous at best. However, I'm not saying lick boots either. Guns will never get banned, not while the NRA have their hands in politicians' pockets, and not while manufacturers like Winchester and Smith&Wesson still have a global wide economy deeply rooted in American history. It just won't happen.



KennyAtom said:


> Look, I'll be completely honest. This world is changing, and I'm scared of that. I'm scared that if I lose my guns, they'll come for me next. I'm scared that if I lose my guns, I'll be an easier target. I'm scared that if I lose my guns, I'm boned, fucked, whatever they say nowadays.
> 
> I'm scared of change, and enacting more gun control is changing shit I used to know. I'll probably be able to get through it since the gun control laws most likely won't remove my current guns, but I'm fucking scared, man. I don't know what'll come next, and that shit is what freaks me out.



You have a lot more credibility and insight than some of the other "conservative Republicans" (I use that term loosely in regards to you because I can see that you're struggling to separate yourself from them, which is admirable).

You're indoctrinated. Not because you're weak, or stupid, or chose to be so. It's how the American government (and by extension, many others) works, and a lot of people have been bred and educated to believe these fear campaigns. At the end of the day though, that's all they are: fear campaigns. And honestly? I don't feel you or anyone else should be faulted for falling for them. The blame lies in politicians, corporate entities, people in power, who influence people and use them to push their own agenda. It's cruel. 

I won't disagree though; change is fucking scary. But we don't have to be scared. We need to educate ourselves and each other, and remember core societal values like solidarity. Empathy. Cooperation.


----------



## AleronIves (Jun 1, 2022)

Creamu said:


> What if the government turns against its own population?


I've never understood this argument. The government has drones, tanks, missles, nukes, and all sorts of poisons at its disposal. If the government REALLY wants you dead, you're going to die, and no stockpile of guns in your basement is going to save you.

If you want to prevent the government from turning against the people, don't vote for authoritarian politicians. It's simple, and no guns are required.


----------



## Creamu (Jun 1, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> I've never understood this argument. The government has drones, tanks, missles, nukes, and all sorts of poisons at its disposal. If the government REALLY wants you dead, you're going to die, and no stockpile of guns in your basement is going to save you.


Well a government has to calculate the cost. The bolshevik government did kill 66.000.000 people and that was a very bad look on a historical scale. If the populus under the bolshevik regime had been well armed, that would have looked even worse and might not have been possible at all.


AleronIves said:


> If you want to prevent the government from turning against the people, don't vote for authoritarian politicians. It's simple, and no guns are required.


You can't vote yourself out of a government that is hostile towards you.


----------



## Creamu (Jun 1, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> At that point, honestly, there's not much hope for any blue collar citizen. Pro gun "doomsday preppers" are quick to comment how they'll go toe to toe with the militia should it come beating down their door, with their glocks and their sawed off's and their hunting rifles, and somehow don't seem to realize that when the militia comes, they'll have tanks, and drones, and tactics, and bio-chemical warfare, and so on. They're so quick to die to protect their guns, even at the cost of their own family. It's ludicrous at best. However, I'm not saying lick boots either. Guns will never get banned, not while the NRA have their hands in politicians' pockets, and not while manufacturers like Winchester and Smith&Wesson still have a global wide economy deeply rooted in American history. It just won't happen.


I believe you are right. The americans are smart enough to keep their guns. Directly attacking the america populus would be very costly.


----------



## V10lator (Jun 1, 2022)

Creamu said:


> Are you suggesting that 1950s american schools were prisions?


No, the exact opposite: You're adding metal detectors, security guards, ... You want teachers to wear weapons and so on... Hell, when will we reach the point you want that scoolers need to get a finger in their ass to see they don't smuggle anything in?
So the more you try to prevent shootings the more you are making scools like prisions / handle scoolers like prisioners.


> The treatment of kids these days is burtal in many ways, has anyone voted for this. The answer is no.


So why do you want more and more "security" at scools? Is this not voting for handling scoolers like criminals?


> What is 'we' in this case?


We the civilians who proved we're more powerfull in the corona crysis.


> If you are arguing that you are as powerful against a military force with or without weaponary, I dont know what to tell you.


And I don't know what to tell you, too, except what I told already:


V10lator said:


> For this EU/Corona thing there are quotes from high police and military people like:
> "How should we arrest thousands of people in a single city? We neither have enough space in jails nor enough cars for all the transports. So we do nothing"
> "There are more people on the streets than police officers. We can't stop them no matter what. If politicans want to do something against that they should go on the streets trying to stop them"
> "We don't have enough man power nor enough bullets to shoot all them down. Also if we did there would be even more people going onto the streets, so problems would get worse. Better for us to not interact"
> ...


Remember: This was less than 5% of civilians rioting on the streets. We broke multiple laws, broke police barriers and so on. Still no guns used and zero deads. Also no arrestments! This clearly answers your question about what will happen when government turns against its civilians, doesn't it?

Also think about it that way: When they kill all of you (by using chemical or nuclear weapons, for example, which your guns wouldn't protect against anyway) who would be left to apply the power to? So the guys in power would loose their power with this actions. This isn't what they want.


----------



## AleronIves (Jun 1, 2022)

Creamu said:


> The bolshevik government did kill 66.000.000 people and that was a very bad look on a historical scale. If the populus under the bolshevik regime had been well armed, that would have looked even worse and might not have been possible at all.


The Bolsheviks seized power in 1917 through an armed insurrection, so you could just as easily argue that if they hadn't had guns, they never would have been able to take control in the first place.



Creamu said:


> You can't vote yourself out of a government that is hostile towards you.


The much bigger danger is voting IN a goverrnment that is hostile towards you. Hitler gained control of Germany in elections after promising to make Germany great again, and the world paid a heavy price.


----------



## Creamu (Jun 1, 2022)

V10lator said:


> No, the exact opposite: You're adding metal detectors, security guards, ... You want teachers to wear weapons and so on... Hell, when will we reach the point you want that scoolers need to get a finger in their ass to see they don't smuggle anything in?


If you are talking about me, I want order to return to america.


V10lator said:


> So the more you try to prevent shootings the more you are making scools like prisions / handle scoolers like prisioners.


Under the current government schools are supposed to be more and more like prisons and there is no party you can vote for that will stop that.


V10lator said:


> So why do you want more and more "security" at scools? Is this not voting for handling scoolers like criminals?


Can you give me a quote, were I said anything like this?


V10lator said:


> We the civilians who proved we're more powerfull in the corona crysis.


That is a ridiculous take to me. You think the corona crisis was a demonstration of the strength of your populus?


V10lator said:


> And I don't know what to tell you, too, except what I told already:
> 
> Remember: This was less than 5% of civilians rioting on the streets. We broke multiple laws, broke police barriers and so on. Still no guns used and zero deads. Also no arrestments! This clearly answers your question about what will happen when government turns against its civilians, doesn't it?


You are so demoralized that you count that as a victory.


V10lator said:


> Also think about it that way: When they kill all of you (by using chemical or nuclear weapons, for example, which your guns wouldn't protect against anyway) who would be left to apply the power to?


The rest of the world. Believe it or not, but thats a very bad look.


V10lator said:


> So the guys in power would loose their power with this actions. This isn't what they want.


I can't quite follow your train of thought here.


----------



## Creamu (Jun 1, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> The Bolsheviks seized power in 1917 through an armed insurrection, so you could just as easily argue that if they hadn't had guns, they never would have been able to take control in the first place.


Oh yes, they were making sure that their guns were legal before killing the tsar.


AleronIves said:


> The much bigger danger is voting IN a goverrnment that is hostile towards you. Hitler gained control of Germany in elections after promising to make Germany great again, and the world paid a heavy price.


The clip I posted above might be interesting to you as well.


----------



## V10lator (Jun 1, 2022)

Creamu said:


> If you are talking about me, I want order to return to america.


You're talking like you live in america al the time. So sorry for me missunerstanding. Still the point stants: People want more security at scools. And with people I mean civilians.


Creamu said:


> You think the corona crisis was a demonstration of the strength of your populus?


Did you sleep while we rioted? This was big international news:






In this videos you see police trying to stop us but that was when less then 1% of civilians where on the streets. We stacked up and that changed their minds so they gave up. This in return directly influeced politicans to do what we say instead of forcing their rules.


Creamu said:


> You are so demoralized that you count that as a victory.


When police, military and government giving up is not a victory, what else is?


Creamu said:


> The rest of the world. Believe it or not, but thats a very bad look.


So when they have no more manpower left to fight cause they lost all in civilian wars they have power against the rest of the world? Sounds reasonable... o.O


----------



## Creamu (Jun 1, 2022)

V10lator said:


> You're talking like you live in america al the time. So sorry for me missunerstanding. Still the point stants: People want more security at scools. And with people I mean civilians.


Yes, and this will be accomplished by returning to order.


V10lator said:


> Did you sleep while we rioted?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If you are at the point were you have to do things like this to stop politicians from forcing certain things on you, you are at the loosing end.


V10lator said:


> When police, military and government giving up is not a victory, what else is?


Being a selfdetermined people?


V10lator said:


> So when they have no more manpower left to fight cause they lost all in civilian wars they have power against the rest of the world? Sounds reasonable... o.O


This is a misunderstanding, I think I didn't follow your train of thought there. If you want to restate your position feel free to do so.


----------



## V10lator (Jun 1, 2022)

Creamu said:


> Yes, and this will be accomplished by returning to order.


Not sure if I'm understanding what you want to say. Are you a soldier?


Creamu said:


> If you are at the point were you have to do things like this to stop politians from forcing certain things on you, you are on the loosing end.





... What difference did you guns make here exactly? And why is us rioting beeing on the loosing end but you (US citisens) rioting is not?


Creamu said:


> If you want to restate your position feel free to do so.


I could but I'm really tired argumenting.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 1, 2022)

The U.S. a country that still (rightfully) enables its citizens to bear arms, but many modern policies are incompatible with that notion. There’s a reason why so many mass shootings take place in schools - they’re gun-free zones, and criminals have a nasty habit of not following the law. If someone’s going to commit a mass shooting, there’s no better place than a gun-free zone - who’s going to stop the assailant, and with what? *If* you’re going to have a gun-free zone, you necessarily need armed guards around it protecting everybody in the zone who can’t effectively protect themselves - that’s not only costly, it’s hardly optimal or efficient. The alternative is to abolish gun-free zones and allow responsible adults to carry for the purposes of self-defense, just like they can in any other circumstances. Just this Monday a mass shooting in West Virginia was successfully prevented by one woman lawfully carrying - I firmly believe that citizens, not the police, are the first line of defense against mass killings. Police response time is simply too long, and even when police does show up, the expectations people have regarding the police are too high. Everyone’s upset that the police simply secured the perimeter and waited as opposed to barging in to neutralise the threat, which is odd because that’s the most predictable turn of events possible. They’re just people - they don’t want to get shot either, and they’re not paid to get shot. If anyone’s under the impression that it’s their job to charge in like Superman and take a bullet for you, you need to divorce yourself from that Superhero myth. They’re just a bunch of guys. They will neutralise a shooter if they’re safe and have clear line of sight - anything else would be an exception, not the rule. “Protect and serve” is not a shorthand for “mercenary”, they’re not paid to die for anyone.


----------



## Creamu (Jun 1, 2022)

V10lator said:


> ... What difference did you guns make here exactly? And why is us rioting beeing on the loosing end but you (US citisens) rioting is not?


You have the habit of assuming that I have positions I dont have.


V10lator said:


> I could but I'm really tired argumenting.


Okay


----------



## V10lator (Jun 1, 2022)

@Foxi4 Whole germany is a gun-free zone. We neither need protection nor do we have shootings anywhere. How do you explain that?
When response time of police is too slow you need better police training.
When civilians are the first line of defense, why didn't civilians stop the texas massacre?


----------



## V10lator (Jun 1, 2022)

Creamu said:


> You have the habit of assuming that I have positions I dont have.


With "you" I mean US citisens in general. Thought I made this clear, sorry if not.


----------



## Creamu (Jun 1, 2022)

V10lator said:


> When response time of police is too slow you need better police training.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 1, 2022)

V10lator said:


> @Foxi4 Whole germany is a gun-free zone. We neither need protection nor do we have shootings anywhere. How do you explain that?
> When response time of police is too slow you need better police training.
> When civilians are the first line of defense, why didn't civilians stop the texas massacre?


What’s there to explain? You have no firearms (besides the few illegal ones, and the few licensed ones), so you have no shootings - that part is not disputable, and it’d be in bad faith to claim otherwise. There’s a cost in liberty associated with that.


----------



## V10lator (Jun 1, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> There’s a cost in liberty associated with that.


Please explain this some more. What liberty do you have that I don't have? Except the right to kill anyone entering my property, cause I don't want that anyway.


----------



## Creamu (Jun 1, 2022)

V10lator said:


> With "you" I mean US citisens in general. Thought I made this clear, sorry if not.





V10lator said:


> And why is us rioting beeing on the loosing end but you (US citisens) rioting is not?


Not my position.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 1, 2022)

V10lator said:


> Please explain this some more. What liberty do you have that I don't have? Except the right to kill anyone entering my property, cause I don't want that anyway.


I live in the UK - my right to bear arms as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights was curbed with subsequent legislation, sadly. As such, my ability to defend myself and the population’s countermeasure against tyranny were sadly removed.


----------



## V10lator (Jun 1, 2022)

Creamu said:


> Not my position.


Sorry, I think there are really some missunderstandings between us.


----------



## V10lator (Jun 1, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> my ability to defend myself and the population’s countermeasure against tyranny were sadly removed.


Is there more tyranny since the ban? Not sure if UK was part of the EU riots (you "brexited" after all) but in case it was: Was it harder to fight against the tyranny than before? In case you didn't riot anyway just ignore this question, please.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 1, 2022)

V10lator said:


> No, the exact opposite: You're adding metal detectors, security guards, ... You want teachers to wear weapons and so on... Hell, when will we reach the point you want that scoolers need to get a finger in their ass to see they don't smuggle anything in?
> So the more you try to prevent shootings the more you are making scools like prisions / handle scoolers like prisioners.
> 
> So why do you want more and more "security" at scools? Is this not voting for handling scoolers like criminals?



No. Airports and many government offices have metal detectors,  and those are hardly viewed as prisons. If they staffed vets as security guards, that would help two fold, with giving jobs and having security guards with applicable knowledge. I don't understand the thinking behind not funding and providing ample security and protection for future generations; if kids keep getting killed, who's going to get taxed for social security?


----------



## Creamu (Jun 1, 2022)

V10lator said:


> Sorry, I think there are really some missunderstandings between us.


Yes, we have different kinds of cognition.


----------



## V10lator (Jun 1, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> No. Airports and many government offices have metal detectors,  and those are hardly viewed as prisons.


Are scoolers forced to go to airports and government offices each day? Try to see this from the viewpoint of a scooler, please.


SyphenFreht said:


> that would help two fold, with giving jobs and having security guards with applicable knowledge.


So your argument is "they steal our jobs"? That's not a good argument for keeping guns and threatening scoolers like prisioners so they'll get mental illnes more easily. Also where was this applicable knowledge at the texas massacre?


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 1, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> No. Airports and many government offices have metal detectors,  and those are hardly viewed as prisons. If they staffed vets as security guards, that would help two fold, with giving jobs and having security guards with applicable knowledge. I don't understand the thinking behind not funding and providing ample security and protection for future generations; if kids keep getting killed, who's going to get taxed for social security?


You have to balance security measures based on effectiveness. The TSA is a prime example of this - besides stealing a bunch of money and luggage the results of implementing the agency are questionable. There’s no evidence that they’ve ever prevented a single terrorist attack, but they’ve been inconveniencing the population for two decades now. In fact, their own self-assessments show that they fail to stop 95% of contraband from coming through, so what are they for, besides wasting tax dollars? In fact, the Government Accountability Office verified this - they planted 70 “fake terrorists” on flights, all with fake weapons and bombs. Guess how many passed through the checks without any issues? 67. The TSA is useless, and the government knows this.

https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2016/5/17/11687014/tsa-against-airport-security

The number one answer to this problem is to abolish gun-free zones entirely - schools are full of sitting geese, perfect targets that cannot fight back. Just the *possibility* of someone there being armed is a deterrent for a potential shooter.


----------



## V10lator (Jun 1, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Just the *possibility* of someone there being armed is a deterrent for a potential shooter.


Sorry for bringing this argument now but: How exactly did the possibilty of armed flight agents stopped the 11. of september?
As others said: When you have a gun the bad guys will get bigger guns... Or Bombs... Or even worse things. So you want every citisen to have his own nuclear army? THIS is what terror really is! Don't be that afraid. Trust just a tiny bit in humanity. Sure there will always be bad guys doing bad things but more and more armory won't stop them at all.

//EDIT: Also aren't there armed guards at US scools already? Did that stop shootings?

//EDIT²: Also do you realise that these shooters want to get shot in the end? Don't you know what suicide by cops means? This kind of suicide is something you see in the US only...


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 1, 2022)

V10lator said:


> Are scoolers forced to go to airports and government offices each day? Try to see this from the viewpoint of a scooler, please.



I have three schoolers of my own and they view school as a prison regardless. Adding metal detectors won't add to that stigma in the slightest and even if it did, who cares? I'd rather have my kids, and all kids, slightly inconvenienced if it means their lives are saved. 




V10lator said:


> So your argument is "they steal our jobs"? That's not a good argument for keeping guns and threatening scoolers like prisioners so they'll get mental illnes more easily. Also where was this applicable knowledge at the texas massacre?



Please help me understand how you came to that conclusion, because I'm literally baffled at  how you arrived at that. Nothing I said can even be remotely construed as "stealing our jobs", and if you think metal detectors and security guards are threatening, you must not get out much. 

As far as the Texas massacre goes, how many security guards were there that were also veterans?


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 1, 2022)

V10lator said:


> Sorry for bringing this argument now but: How exactly did the possibilty of armed flight agents stopped the 11. of september exactly?
> As others said: When you have a gun the bad guys will get bigger guns... Or Bombs... Or even worse things. So you want every citisen to have his own nuclear army? THIS is what terror really is! Don't be that afraid. Trust just a tiny bit in humanity. Sure there will always be bad guys doing bad things but more and more armory won't stop them at all.


I am 100% of the opinion that citizens should have access to the exact same arms as the military, and I won’t budge on it. The government cannot have the monopoly on violence - that’s a recipe for tyranny. I don’t trust in humanity - I was born a short drive away from a death camp. As for September 11th, bad example - one of the hijacked planes was retaken from the hijackers and crashed during the struggle, as opposed to reaching its intended destination, which was most likely the Capitol. You’re comparing a highly organised terrorist attack to everyday self-defense, which I consider a human right. In order for that right to be truly relevant, one must have means of self-defense, and that contemporarily means firearms. Anything short of that is an imposition on liberty that should be met with protest. Should, which doesn’t mean it does - many European nations became complacent in the wake of being disarmed, which is why we see so much government overreach, particularly throughout the last few years.


----------



## Creamu (Jun 1, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> I have three schoolers of my own and they view school as a prison regardless. Adding metal detectors won't add to that stigma in the slightest and even if it did, who cares? I'd rather have my kids, and all kids, slightly inconvenienced if it means their lives are saved.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


They had security guards at the Texas massacre?


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 1, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> You have to balance security measures based on effectiveness. The TSA is a prime example of this - besides stealing a bunch of money and luggage the results of implementing the agency are questionable. There’s no evidence that they’ve ever prevented a single terrorist attack, but they’ve been inconveniencing the population for two decades now. In fact, their own self-assessments show that they fail to stop 95% of contraband from coming through, so what are they for, besides wasting tax dollars? In fact, the Government Accountability Office verified this - they planted 70 “fake terrorists” on flights, all with fake weapons and bombs. Guess how many passed through the checks without any issues? 67. The TSA is useless, and the government knows this.
> 
> https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2016/5/17/11687014/tsa-against-airport-security
> 
> The number one answer to this problem is to abolish gun-free zones entirely - schools are full of sitting geese, perfect targets that cannot fight back. Just the *possibility* of someone there being armed is a deterrent for a potential shooter.



Well with any luck we wouldn't be hiring any TSA agents to protect schools. 

The problem with that argument comes in many forms, but the most glaring is the idea of putting said effectiveness into action. We don't know how effective it will be until it happens, and the effectiveness of such also falls on the shoulders of the people enacting such a situation. If you have a great idea and have a moron implement it, it probably won't be effective, but that falls on he who implements, not the idea itself. You could also have a crappy idea that becomes effective under the right conditions. 

TSA agents are notorious for being terrible because the training is crap and they're basically glorified security guards who get paid crap. While it's not a bad comparison per say, if you put a veteran in a school as an armed guard (eliminating gun free zones, obviously) and pay them decently, there's a good chance they'll do the job competently. Obviously this isn't something that needs to be implemented nationwide right off the bat; use isolated incidents and record the data, seeing what's effective and what isn't. If it doesn't work, what's the fallout? Some people getting paid and kids thinking school sucks anyway? 

You and I seem to be in agreement on this issue to some form. I don't understand the idea of a gun free zone, nor do I see the point in it, but I don't believe the answer should be to field every able person with a firearm either. Especially not teachers.


----------



## V10lator (Jun 1, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> I have three schoolers of my own and they view school as a prison regardless.


I just have to quote this now:


SyphenFreht said:


>





SyphenFreht said:


> slightly inconvenienced if it means their lives are saved.


So you apply your mental illnes to your kids. Great parenting... That's all I say to this... For real: WOW!


SyphenFreht said:


> Please help me understand how you came to that conclusion


Maybe cause of that:


SyphenFreht said:


> giving jobs





SyphenFreht said:


> As far as the Texas massacre goes, how many security guards were there that were also veterans?


Oh, so now you need to be a veteran to stop a child? According to that logic we need more wars to have more veterans, else we can't protect anyone. Also why do none-veterans need weapons for self defense when one needs to be a veteran to even stop a child?



Foxi4 said:


> which is why we see so much government overreach, particularly throughout the last few years.


You guys are so out of reality... I'll really stop arguing with you (all of you) after this post. But to answer to that: And the right to have guns is why we see the exact same overreach in the US?!?


----------



## AleronIves (Jun 1, 2022)

Creamu said:


> The clip I posted above might be interesting to you as well.


Yes, he did predict a lot of the trouble on the left when it comes to wokeness and equity. The trouble is, the right has problems that are just as bad, and possibly even worse. A significant slice of Republicans don't even believe in democracy anymore and have decided that the only two possible outcomes of an election are that they either win, or the vote was rigged and they therefore also win. Preventing the rise of Soviet-style oppression in the US is important, but if you destroy the foundations of US democracy in the process, you've merely traded one form of tyranny for another.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 1, 2022)

V10lator said:


> You guys are so out of reality... I'll really stop arguing with you (all of you) after this post. But to answer to that: And the right to have guns is why we see the exact same overreach in the US?!?


Wouldn’t call it “exactly the same”. I will say that every citizen of the Czech Republic is legally allowed to file for a firearms license and carry two concealed firearms - no mass shootings. In Switzerland every able-bodied man between 20-34 is considered a candidate for militia conscription and is allowed to store fully-automatic weapons at home - no mass shootings. You know who else is allowed to open carry as of February 2022? The Ukrainians. You know why? Because they have bad neighbours. There are circumstances in which the line between citizen and combatant is blurred - should such times come, I’d rather have a piece than a metal detector.

Edit: Out of plain curiosity I checked how many civilian firearms per 100 citizens do Germans own. I think you’ll be rather surprised to know that it’s 19.6, since you mentioned Germany. That’s 1 in 5, in case you were under the impression that your compatriots weren’t armed. They are, just to a lesser extent. I’m quite surprised - I expected ownership to be lower. Good for Germans - buy more.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_guns_per_capita_by_country


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 1, 2022)

Creamu said:


> They had security guards at the Texas massacre?



If I'm understanding the point V10lator is trying to make, apparently so. 



V10lator said:


> I just have to quote this now:
> 
> 
> So you apply your mental illnes to your kids. Great parenting... That's all I say to this... For real: WOW!
> ...



I'm getting the feeling English isn't your first language. 

Thanks for the video. Not sure how it's relevant, but to each their own. 

What mental illness am I suffering from? Care? Empathy? Common sense? 

I said giving, not stealing. My point was, if you give veterans a job as a school security guard, you can effectively battle two problems with one solution. You don't have to be a veteran to save a child, but if you can save a child and give a veteran a job,  why not? 

Are you pro gun? Anti gun? Conservative? Republican? Libertarian? Maybe I'm just tired, but you seem to be wildly swinging at arguments like a blind boxer. Calm down, take a breath, and try to be a little more eloquent.


----------



## V10lator (Jun 1, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> What mental illness am I suffering from? Care? Empathy? Common sense?


Really my last answer in this thread: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anxiety_disorder

//EDIT: I'm a anti-gun slightly left-winged guy with his own mind.


----------



## Creamu (Jun 1, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> Yes, he did predict a lot of the trouble on the left when it comes to wokeness and equity. The trouble is, the right has problems that are just as bad, and possibly even worse.


In his view they are the same. Right and left are there to occupy your mind.


AleronIves said:


> A significant slice of Republicans don't even believe in democracy anymore and have decided that the only two possible outcomes of an election are that they either win, or the vote was rigged and they therefore also win.


Yes, I do believe that the government looses its patients/ability to keep the fasade of democracy, at least in the way it was celebrated in the past. There will be a paradym change coming.


AleronIves said:


> Preventing the rise of Soviet-style oppression in the US is important, but if you destroy the foundations of US democracy in the process, you've merely traded one form of tyranny for another.


They are one (if we are talking left/right dialectic here)


----------



## Creamu (Jun 1, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> If I'm understanding the point V10lator is trying to make, apparently so.


As far as I am informed there was no security.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 1, 2022)

V10lator said:


> Really my last answer in this thread: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anxiety_disorder



So. You're saying I have anxiety because of... why again? Let's assume I'm retarded. Please explain it like I'm 5.



Creamu said:


> As far as I am informed there was no security.



I didn't think there was. This person is an onion and I feel like every layer of their argument is going to cause me to cry.


----------



## V10lator (Jun 1, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> So. You're saying I have anxiety because of... why again? Let's assume I'm retarded. Please explain it like I'm 5.


You want me to keep in this thread? I won't. So really, really last answer: Why again? Cause you fear your kids die when you loose your weapons (so much that you risk them getting mentally ill - after all it's just for their own safety, right?). You (all of you) fear that the world will end when you don't have a big gun protecting yourself and your family. You fear the change. You fear the government. You just fear anything...
The only thing you trust into is a weapon in your hand. Anything other is creepy and you would love to shot it on sight.


----------



## Creamu (Jun 1, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> I didn't think there was. This person is an onion and I feel like every layer of their argument is going to cause me to cry.


Theres a little bit of a language barrier, and this user projects positions onto others in my experience.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 1, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> So. You're saying I have anxiety because of... why again? Let's assume I'm retarded. Please explain it like I'm 5.
> 
> I didn't think there was. This person is an onion and I feel like every layer of their argument is going to cause me to cry.


The whole argument is disingenuous anyway. The question everyone is asking is “how many dead children does it take before you relinquish liberty”, and it’s designed to make the correct answer sound cold and unfeeling. Everyone feels for the victims, but none of it is an argument for relinquishing the constitutional right to bear arms. Infringing upon enumerated rights for “the greater good” is not acceptable - the second amendment is the only one that specifies it shall not be infringed. The reason is very simple - it’s the ultimate means the population has to defend all the other rights.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 1, 2022)

V10lator said:


> You want me to keep in this thread? I won't. So really, really last answer: Why again? Cause you fear your kids die when you loose your weapons. You (all of you) fear that the world will end when you don't have a big gun protecting yourself and your family. You fear the change. You fear the government. You just fear anything...



I think you misunderstand my position. I don't feel that anyone's guns should be taken away, but I also feel more needs to be done with the current, half broken gun control model America is currently adopting. To believe that no one should have a gun is absurd, because those who want one will get one, but the other extremity of giving everyone a gun is not ideal either, because that only promises that further casualties will happen. 

I also believe that our perspective on mental health in the states is atrocious. Not enough is being done at the right time for the right people because no one wants to distribute responsibility evenly. They always want someone else to do it, and that's even if they identify that there's a problem in the first place. More needs to be done to identify these issues as much as possible before these tragedies happen, and ample punishment and rehab needs to be applied to the perpetrators afterward. 

I don't fear the government, or anyone, but that doesn't mean I'm willing to go toe to toe with the militia either. You can defect and rebel and rise up without licking boots.



Creamu said:


> Theres a little bit of a language barrier, and this user projects positions onto others in my experience.



That seems apparent. I'm trying not to come across as too harsh because of the language barrier, but we'll see how that goes I guess.


----------



## Creamu (Jun 1, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> That seems apparent. I'm trying not to come across as too harsh because of the language barrier, but we'll see how that goes I guess.


Harshness is okay as long as you think you can achieve other steps along the way.

My question is: How are people supposed to fight for their liberty to return to roman greatness, when you take their guns away?


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 1, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> The whole argument is disingenuous anyway. The question everyone is asking is “how many dead children does it take before you relinquish liberty”, and it’s designed to make the correct answer sound cold and unfeeling. Everyone feels for the victims, but none of it is an argument for relinquishing the constitutional right to bear arms. Infringing upon enumerated rights for “the greater good” is not acceptable - the second amendment is the only one that specifies it shall not be infringed. The reason is very simple - it’s the ultimate means the population has to defend all the other rights.



A big problem is the extremists on either side of the argument. A society should have the means to fight back a tyrannical government, but at what point does the line between freely shooting your neighbor and "fighting the good fight" become blurred? How can we arm ourselves in the event of a revolt without also giving way to people mowing each other down in the streets? We can't have one dystopia without eventually succumbing to the other, but it seems like cooperation and solidarity are lost upon the greater majority, regardless of political or moral affiliation.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 1, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Well with any luck we wouldn't be hiring any TSA agents to protect schools.
> 
> The problem with that argument comes in many forms, but the most glaring is the idea of putting said effectiveness into action. We don't know how effective it will be until it happens, and the effectiveness of such also falls on the shoulders of the people enacting such a situation. If you have a great idea and have a moron implement it, it probably won't be effective, but that falls on he who implements, not the idea itself. You could also have a crappy idea that becomes effective under the right conditions.
> 
> ...


Certainly not everyone, no. My general approach to life, one that is tried and true, is that the government sucks at everything and anything it touches immediately turns to shit due to inherent inefficiency in large systems composed of human cogs. As such, it should do the bare minimum and leave the rest to the people - people have a vested interest in their own safety. Given the option to carry, I’m certain many school employees would (and should). Would they act? Perhaps. They would certainly be there with means to defend themselves should the need arise.


SyphenFreht said:


> A big problem is the extremists on either side of the argument. A society should have the means to fight back a tyrannical government, but at what point does the line between freely shooting your neighbor and "fighting the good fight" become blurred? How can we arm ourselves in the event of a revolt without also giving way to people mowing each other down in the streets? We can't have one dystopia without eventually succumbing to the other, but it seems like cooperation and solidarity are lost upon the greater majority, regardless of political or moral affiliation.


You don’t have the right to shoot your neighbour, period. There’s a very simple contract of non-aggression between all of us - if my life is threatened, you better believe I will use any means necessary to protect myself and my family *or* remove myself from harm’s way. Liberty isn’t free - if you introduce guns to the equation, some people will use them in ways they should not. That’s not an argument to disarm law-abiding citizens. Gun ownership in America is the highest in all of the civilised world - 120 per 100 citizens. The fact that you *don’t* have massive massacres every single day speaks volumes about each and every law abiding gun owner. The shootings you do have are exceptions, not the rule. Defensive gun use *far* surpasses offensive gun use, and prevents victimisation.


----------



## Creamu (Jun 1, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> The whole argument is disingenuous anyway.  [...]


In a way that's a effective stategy. Set the framing in a way so your opponent is on the defensive. Don't let him advance.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 1, 2022)

Creamu said:


> In a way that's a effective stategy. Set the framing in a way so your opponent is on the defensive. Don't let him advance.


It’s an emotional appeal. One thing has nothing to do with the other, but it makes people’s hearts take over their brains.


----------



## AleronIves (Jun 1, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> many European nations became complacent in the wake of being disarmed, which is why we see so much government overreach, particularly throughout the last few years.


What's your point here? Are you suggesting that people need guns so they can shoot their MPs when they make unpopular decisions, and the fear of this happening will keep MPs from making unpopular decisions? Surely you must have a different point than that...


----------



## Creamu (Jun 1, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> It’s an emotional appeal. One thing has nothing to do with the other, but it makes people’s hearts take over their brains.


Yes. And I think it is plausible to assume that you can't shape public discourse by reasoning. The game of creating movement is an emotional one. This is a sobering thought, but I believe it is true in a deep sense.


----------



## Creamu (Jun 1, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> What's your point here? Are you suggesting that people need guns so they can shoot their MPs when they make unpopular decisions, and the fear of this happening will keep MPs from making unpopular decisions? Surely you must have a different point than that...


It's about being the largest pain in the ass for powerhungry psychopaths (this is usually the type that comes to power) as possible.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 1, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> What's your point here? Are you suggesting that people need guns so they can shoot their MPs when they make unpopular decisions, and the fear of this happening will keep MPs from making unpopular decisions? Surely you must have a different point than that...


When did I suggest that? What I did say was that a population that is armed is less susceptible to suffer from government tyranny. It’s not a fight the government wants to pick, nor is it one it could feasibly win. It’s far less likely that the rights of an armed populace will be infringed purely by the virtue of the populace having the means to fight back. Ever heard the phrase “better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it?” - it applies here perfectly. Nobody *wants* to be forced into a conflict, which creates a comfortable stalemate. In addition to that, it enables the populace to defend themselves from threats, both internal and external.


----------



## V10lator (Jun 2, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> I think you misunderstand my position.


Okay, let's try this one last time. As others said please keep language barries in mind but I'll do my best to make my PoV clear now.


SyphenFreht said:


> half broken gun control model America is currently adopting.


This is where we agree: The current situation is a nightmare.


SyphenFreht said:


> To believe that no one should have a gun is absurd, because those who want one will get one


And that's where we disagree. We have black markets with guns here in germany/EU, too. Most of these guns come from america through. So you are the ones feeding these black markets with your guns. Also almost nobody here takes the opporturnity to buy such a gun just because of the hard laws we have.


SyphenFreht said:


> Not enough is being done at the right time for the right people because no one wants to distribute responsibility evenly


While this is a big proplem in the US in general it's not the problem with scool shootings. Especially scoolers won't seek for help, even with the best offers. So you know they have issues when it's too late. Please read all the posts in this thread, then you see why I speak from self experience here (and why I didn't do a scool shooting back in the days).


SyphenFreht said:


> More needs to be done to identify these issues as much as possible before these tragedies happen


Which means screenings before getting a gun as well as continuous screening while owning one, right? This is exactly how this is handled here in germany! Everyone can be a sports shooter, for example, so why doesn't everyone own a gun with this excuse? Cause 99% fall through this screening. I'm sure a lot of pro-gun people in the US would fall through this, too, cause anxiety IS a mental issue and we won't handle guns to such people.


SyphenFreht said:


> I don't fear the government, or anyone, but that doesn't mean I'm willing to go toe to toe with the militia either.


Don't get me wrong, this is not meaned as a personal attack, I'm not even talking about you but others in this thread but isn't wanting to own a gun to protect yourself from military is going toe to toe with them?


SyphenFreht said:


> How can we arm ourselves in the event of a revolt without also giving way to people mowing each other down in the streets?


This is a real good question and I tried to give real world example for that. There are even more examples through: As told there is a black market in the EU, too, so people could decide to break the laws in masses at any time. There's no way customs could fish out every single weapon if we would mass-import them on the black market. You see this in other countries with civil-wars, too: People don't have guns before the wars but when they start they are suddendly armed.


Foxi4 said:


> Certainly not everyone, no. My general approach to life, one that is tried and true, is that the government sucks at everything and anything it touches immediately turns to shit due to inherent inefficiency in large systems composed of human cogs


Is there one real world example where civil guns made a difference in that regard?


Foxi4 said:


> I’m certain many school employees would (and should).


But they aren't trained with gun safety in the slightes way. So what will happen when a scooler manages to steal a teachers weapon?


Foxi4 said:


> The fact that you *don’t* have massive massacres every single day speaks volumes about each and every law abiding gun owner.


See it the other way around: All other countries don't have massive massacres every single day, too. In fact the US has more such massacres than any anti-gun law countries on this planet combined. What does that say to you?


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 2, 2022)

Creamu said:


> Harshness is okay as long as you think you can achieve other steps along the way.
> 
> My question is: How are people supposed to fight for their liberty to return to roman greatness, when you take their guns away?



That's a hard one to answer, because the idea of taking guns away will never happen, regardless of who's pushing for it. But I will say this: regardless of whether we have guns or not, should the government decide to enforce martial law within its current military state, those who fight back won't get nearly as far as they hope, and anything less than what we have now in terms of civilian weaponry will almost certainly result in mass extermination. 



Foxi4 said:


> Certainly not everyone, no. My general approach to life, one that is tried and true, is that the government sucks at everything and anything it touches immediately turns to shit due to inherent inefficiency in large systems composed of human cogs. As such, it should do the bare minimum and leave the rest to the people - people have a vested interest in their own safety. Given the option to carry, I’m certain many school employees would (and should). Would they act? Perhaps. They would certainly be there with means to defend themselves should the need arise.



I can't find much of a fault in this, in any regard, but I personally am a strong opponent against the generalized idea of anarchy a lot of people good today. The government is too large to effectively lord over the amount of people we have today, but all anarchy eventually leads to mass societal restructuring, and if the demons of today come into power, they know no better than to repeat the same mistakes their predecessors. History always repeats itself. 



Foxi4 said:


> You don’t have the right to shoot your neighbour, period. There’s a very simple contract of non-aggression between all of us - if my life is threatened, you better believe I will use any means necessary to protect myself and my family *or* remove myself from harm’s way. Liberty isn’t free - if you introduce guns to the equation, some people will use them in ways they should not. That’s not an argument to disarm law-abiding citizens. Gun ownership in America is the highest in all of the civilised world - 120 per 100 citizens. The fact that you *don’t* have massive massacres every single day speaks volumes about each and every law abiding gun owner. The shootings you do have are exceptions, not the rule. Defensive gun use *far* surpasses offensive gun use, and prevents victimisation.



The next step then is to foster an environment where people aren't inclined to use firearms against each, but at what cost will people go to support these programs? Will they be happy to comply with routine mental health checks and mandatory psych evaluations if it seems they're needed? Will they be happy with the possibility of a higher gun tax to offset the funding for these programs (because honestly, if these programs were implemented, it's not a hard jump to make)? I think the biggest hurdle to overcome is coming to the understanding that if a civilian wishes to exercise their government given right to bear arms, that they should also bear at least partial responsibility in ensuring that an environment exists where people are less inclined to use these arms to shoot said neighbor.


----------



## Creamu (Jun 2, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> That's a hard one to answer, because the idea of taking guns away will never happen, regardless of who's pushing for it.


In the case of america I agree.


SyphenFreht said:


> But I will say this: regardless of whether we have guns or not, should the government decide to enforce martial law within its current military state, those who fight back won't get nearly as far as they hope, and anything less than what we have now in terms of civilian weaponry will almost certainly result in mass extermination.


Yes. It's not a good idea to be in a position were you can easily get wiped out.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 2, 2022)

V10lator said:


> Is there one real world example where civil guns made a difference in that regard?


Yes, plenty, but the existence of a right is not contingent on examples. Defensive gun use alone accounts for this question adequately.


V10lator said:


> But they aren't trained with gun safety in the slightes way. So what will happen when a scooler manages to steal a teachers weapon?


Every responsible gun owner should put hundreds of rounds through their weapon every year to ensure an acceptable degree of proficiency, although that’s an ideal scenario - few people actually train with their firearms, but better gun culture can address that. As for the latter point, if you want to steal someone’s firearm from their holster, go for it - that’s your risk to take. You might end up with more ventilation holes than you started with. I’ve already brought up the example of a woman stopping a mass shooting in West Virginia recently - stuff like that happens all the time. I’ll take a responsible gun owner there and then over the police in 45 minutes, thank you very much.


V10lator said:


> See it the other way around: All other countries don't have massive massacres every single day, too. In fact the US has more such massacres than any anti-gun law countries on this planet combined. What does that say to you?


It says nothing at all, besides the fact that some countries chose to sacrifice liberty for a false promise of security. You won’t convince me that their lives are better purely because they chose to relinquish a fundamental right to be adequately armed - the reasons for an increased frequency in mass shootings are numerous and complex.


SyphenFreht said:


> The next step then is to foster an environment where people aren't inclined to use firearms against each, but at what cost will people go to support these programs? Will they be happy to comply with routine mental health checks and mandatory psych evaluations if it seems they're needed? Will they be happy with the possibility of a higher gun tax to offset the funding for these programs (because honestly, if these programs were implemented, it's not a hard jump to make)? I think the biggest hurdle to overcome is coming to the understanding that if a civilian wishes to exercise their government given right to bear arms, that they should also bear at least partial responsibility in ensuring that an environment exists where people are less inclined to use these arms to shoot said neighbor.


The right to bear arms is not “government-given”, it’s immutable, inalienable and innate, or “god given”, if you’re religiously inclined. The Constitution is a document that functions as a limitation on the government, not on the people. Any notion of collective responsibility is a tricky one because it implies culpability over what strangers do with their guns. Not only can I not control that, I’m not a 100% sure it’s even my business to say who should or shouldn’t own one. I can have certain feelings on the matter, and personal opinions, but that’s about it. This point of view makes it a little tricky to come up with systemic solutions. What I can say is that the system is perpetuating an environment in which those massacres become frequent - one that leads people to be increasingly hopeless, unhappy and depressed.


----------



## AleronIves (Jun 2, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> The right to bear arms is not “government-given”, it’s immutable, inalienable and innate, or “god given”, if you’re religiously inclined.


The problem with this line of thinking is that there is no such thing as inalienable rights. The very concept of "rights" exists only in the human mind, and it persists because it is a useful tool to foster cooperation between large groups of people. The rights enumerated in the Constitution were neither handed down from god, nor were they necessarily considered valuable in previous civilisations. They are a reflection of the priorities of the people who wrote the Constitution, because they either thought at the time that those rights would be a suitable basis for a new country, or they couldn't get the Constitution ratified without including certain provisions that one or more states were demanding.

Other countries do not have a right to bear arms, they have lower levels of gun ownership, and they have fewer mass shootings. The inability of people to see the link between lax gun policy and the prevalence of gun violence is continually astounding. Mass shootings are the most flashy form of gun violence, but most gun deaths result from suicides and domestic altercations, AFAIK. Those types of gun violence just don't make it onto the front page the way mass shootings do.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 2, 2022)

V10lator said:


> Okay, let's try this one last time. As others said please keep language barries in mind but I'll do my best to make my PoV clear now.



I appreciate that.  I will try as well.



V10lator said:


> And that's where we disagree. We have black markets with guns here in germany/EU, too. Most of these guns come from america through. So you are the ones feeding these black markets with your guns. Also almost nobody here takes the opporturnity to buy such a gun just because of the hard laws we have.



I wouldn't say America as a whole, though I don't wish to mince words and split hairs. I would say follow the trail. Obviously all guns come from manufacturers, and I whole-heartedly believe these manufacturers have no problem making things easier for these guns to make it to the black market, because



V10lator said:


> While this is a big proplem in the US in general it's not the problem with scool shootings. Especially scoolers won't seek for help, even with the best offers. So you know they have issues when it's too late. Please read all the posts in this thread, then you see why I speak from self experience here (and why I didn't do a scool shooting back in the days).



It's not necessarily the responsibility of the child to come forward with mental illness problems. School bullying, unwarranted fear in certain situations, so on and etc, are hard enough for children to come forward with, much less advanced concepts of mental instability. Forgive my bias, but as far as I'm concerned that responsibility lies on the parents, and if they don't notice a difference in their child(ren), then that's the fault of the parents. 



V10lator said:


> Which means screenings before getting a gun as well as continuous screening while owning one, right? This is exactly how this is handled here in germany! Everyone can be a sports shooter, for example, so why doesn't everyone own a gun with this excuse? Cause 99% fall through this screening. I'm sure a lot of pro-gun people in the US would fall through this, too, cause anxiety IS a mental issue and we won't handle guns to such people.



I'm ok with the screening, but the problem you point out falls back on gun owners not wanting to foster an environment that supports this behavior. They'd rather just clutch their property and whine everyone else into submission. 



V10lator said:


> Don't get me wrong, this is not meaned as a personal attack, I'm not even talking about you but others in this thread but isn't wanting to own a gun to protect yourself from military is going toe to toe with them?



Oh I know, and I don't mean to be personal either.  Not necessarily. I believe you can own a gun in case of necessity without being overtly aggressive. I would compare it to a pre-nup; in either case you're protecting your "assets" but without that forward moving aggression. However, I can't guarantee elected officials feel the same way. 



V10lator said:


> This is a real good question and I tried to give real world example for that. There are even more examples through: As told there is a black market in the EU, too, so people could decide to break the laws in masses at any time. There's no way customs could fish out every single weapon if we would mass-import them on the black market. You see this in other countries with civil-wars, too: People don't have guns before the wars but when they start they are suddendly armed.



And I think that's one of the biggest points of contention: the sudden and often inexplicable acquisition of guns, especially after tragedies. It blows people's minds how accessible they are, but no one stops to think how they're being acquired.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 2, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> The right to bear arms is not “government-given”, it’s immutable, inalienable and innate, or “god given”, if you’re religiously inclined. The Constitution is a document that functions as a limitation on the government, not on the people. Any notion of collective responsibility is a tricky one because it implies culpability over what strangers do with their guns. Not only can I not control that, I’m not a 100% sure it’s even my business to say who should or shouldn’t own one. I can have certain feelings on the matter, and personal opinions, but that’s about it. This point of view makes it a little tricky to come up with systemic solutions. What I can say is that the system is perpetuating an environment in which those massacres become frequent - one that leads people to be increasingly hopeless, unhappy and depressed.



I say government because that's the typical argument for guns. "It's my second amendment right!" Now, I'll split hairs on this for a moment. I don't believe the right to own a gun is an immutable given, however I believe everyone has the innate right to bear arms of some form in which to defend themselves. A miniscule difference, yes, but I believe it's important in relative terms. Not everyone should own a tank, for example, because that's absolutely a ludicrous idea in this day and age, but if no guns existed, people should still have the means to defend themselves. 

The reason why I feel the distinction is important relates to that same environment that you're referring to: it's not so much the guns that are the problem, it's the lack of moral responsibility and complete lack of understanding for mental health issues. The reason why guns keep getting blamed is because they're not as heavily regulated as they could be and they've become an easy target to relieve oneself of any responsibility of their involvement in whatever scenario came to become a tragedy. But the biggest reason behind blaming guns in particular is how detached one is from the event; close range weaponry causes the perpetrator to be in close proximity to the victim, which puts them at a higher risk of immediate retaliation. Look at the difference in number of "mass" stabbings in relation to mass shootings. I can barely recall one event where someone started randomly stabbing a bunch of people and if I recall correctly he was taken out fairly easily. But what happens when someone starts spraying a crowd and the crowd, at least half of them,  start spraying back? You're going to get a lot more innocent casualties than we did with the stabbing.

I forgot to mention the psychological detachment as well. If you can kill someone from far away, you can just turn and walk away and probably be ok. But stabbing someone? Beating them to death? Having that blood on your hands, your clothes, in your hair? It hits a lot harder than what could be considered a live action version of COD.


----------



## AleronIves (Jun 2, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> I forgot to mention the psychological detachment as well. If you can kill someone from far away, you can just turn and walk away and probably be ok. But stabbing someone? Beating them to death? Having that blood on your hands, your clothes, in your hair? It hits a lot harder than what could be considered a live action version of COD.


I don't know about that. Wasn't there a news story a few months ago about a drone operator who had a mental breakdown over the guilt he felt from killing people from afar? IIRC there was a manhunt, and he ended up shooting himself in the woods, rather than being taken into custody. It was a tragic example of the toll killing from afar can take on a person. Killing up close may be worse, but killing of any kind has severe ramifications.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 2, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> I don't know about that. Wasn't there a news story a few months ago about a drone operator who had a mental breakdown over the guilt he felt from killing people from afar? IIRC there was a manhunt, and he ended up shooting himself in the woods, rather than being taken into custody. It was a tragic example of the toll killing from afar can take on a person. Killing up close may be worse, but killing of any kind has severe ramifications.



I probably could have been a little clearer. The difference in attachment between close range and long distance killing is more often than not very clear, but it's very apparent that long distance killing can and may very well have just as serious an impact on the person, however it does seem that most shooters show more detachment more often than those who kill up close and personal.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 2, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> The problem with this line of thinking is that there is no such thing as inalienable rights. The very concept of "rights" exists only in the human mind, and it persists because it is a useful tool to foster cooperation between large groups of people. The rights enumerated in the Constitution were neither handed down from god, nor were they necessarily considered valuable in previous civilisations. They are a reflection of the priorities of the people who wrote the Constitution, because they either thought at the time that those rights would be a suitable basis for a new country, or they couldn't get the Constitution ratified without including certain provisions that one or more states were demanding.
> 
> Other countries do not have a right to bear arms, they have lower levels of gun ownership, and they have fewer mass shootings. The inability of people to see the link between lax gun policy and the prevalence of gun violence is continually astounding. Mass shootings are the most flashy form of gun violence, but most gun deaths result from suicides and domestic altercations, AFAIK. Those types of gun violence just don't make it onto the front page the way mass shootings do.


Nobody said that there’s no link. If you’re going to have guns, you’re going to have gun violence. The question boils down to a risk/reward and cost/benefit calculation of whether it is right or wrong to deprive people of their means of self-defense and self-determination because guns are occasionally misused. To me, it is wrong.

I disagree with the idea that rights are contingent on the whims of the government. People in countries with no right to bear arms have the same right to self-defense, their government just chose to infringe upon it and the populace hasn’t acted on that infringement, either because it’s complacent or because it doesn’t understand the possible ramifications.



SyphenFreht said:


> I say government because that's the typical argument for guns. "It's my second amendment right!" Now, I'll split hairs on this for a moment. I don't believe the right to own a gun is an immutable given, however I believe everyone has the innate right to bear arms of some form in which to defend themselves. A miniscule difference, yes, but I believe it's important in relative terms. Not everyone should own a tank, for example, because that's absolutely a ludicrous idea in this day and age, but if no guns existed, people should still have the means to defend themselves.
> 
> The reason why I feel the distinction is important relates to that same environment that you're referring to: it's not so much the guns that are the problem, it's the lack of moral responsibility and complete lack of understanding for mental health issues. The reason why guns keep getting blamed is because they're not as heavily regulated as they could be and they've become an easy target to relieve oneself of any responsibility of their involvement in whatever scenario came to become a tragedy. But the biggest reason behind blaming guns in particular is how detached one is from the event; close range weaponry causes the perpetrator to be in close proximity to the victim, which puts them at a higher risk of immediate retaliation. Look at the difference in number of "mass" stabbings in relation to mass shootings. I can barely recall one event where someone started randomly stabbing a bunch of people and if I recall correctly he was taken out fairly easily. But what happens when someone starts spraying a crowd and the crowd, at least half of them,  start spraying back? You're going to get a lot more innocent casualties than we did with the stabbing.
> 
> I forgot to mention the psychological detachment as well. If you can kill someone from far away, you can just turn and walk away and probably be ok. But stabbing someone? Beating them to death? Having that blood on your hands, your clothes, in your hair? It hits a lot harder than what could be considered a live action version of COD.


I live in the UK. Stabbings are as common as rain nowadays, I think I’d take my chances (given the option). The default answer to a rise in violence here is increasing restrictions, so we’re in a never-ending cycle of terrible events leading to a reduced capacity for self-defense. It makes no sense and leaves citizens vulnerable.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42749089.amp

I think the notion that higher levels of gun ownership would lead to good guy vs. bad guy shoot outs becoming commonplace is odd. The reason why I say that is because it’s not happening right now in areas with high gun ownership, and there’s no reason to suggest that’d change. We’re not talking about two armed posses clashing, old western movie-style - we’re talking about citizens intervening against one crazy person.


----------



## smf (Jun 2, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> A society should have the means to fight back a tyrannical government,



You don't have the means to fight back. All this completely unchecked US gun ownership does is kill kids and allow people to play cowboy.

If a tyrannical government took over the US (which it can't, because soldiers are people too) then you would not stand a chance going up against them anyway.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 2, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> change is fucking scary


BAD change is scary, like Brexit or Trump. Progressive change isn't.


----------



## smf (Jun 2, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> It makes no sense and leaves citizens vulnerable.


You are pretending that you can train everyone to defend themselves against an attacker. The problem is you can't solve the issue that bad guys will also be able to be trained, they will always be better prepared.

Knife and gun crime in the UK are both lower than the US.

_There were 34 firearm homicides in the US per million of population in 2016, compared with 0.48 shooting-related murders in the UK.

Knife murders are also higher stateside: there were 4.96 homicides “due to knives or cutting instruments” in the US for every million of population in 2016.

In Britain there were 3.26 homicides involving a sharp instrument per million people in the year from April 2016 to March 2017._

So it seems that inconveniently for you, the UK strategy works. All we need to do now is get rid of this stupid right wing government and see if we can go back to fixing why people end up wanting to commit crimes in the first place.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 2, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I live in the UK. Stabbings are as common as rain nowadays, I think I’d take my chances (given the option). The default answer to a rise in violence here is increasing restrictions, so we’re in a never-ending cycle of terrible events leading to a reduced capacity for self-defense. It makes no sense and leaves citizens vulnerable.


from the same article:

"Although knife crime is on the increase, it should be seen in context. It's relatively unusual for a violent incident to involve a knife, and rarer still for someone to need hospital treatment.
Most violence is caused by people hitting, kicking, shoving or slapping someone, sometimes during a fight and often when they're drunk; the police figures on violence also include crimes of harassment and stalking.
The Crime Survey for England and Wales, which includes offences that aren't reported to police, indicates that overall levels of violence have fallen by about a quarter since 2013.
However, the police-recorded statistics - which tend to pick up more "high harm" crimes - have indicated that the most serious violent crime is increasing."

Please don't describe the UK as some sort of Mad Max hellhole with violence at every corner. It is in no way a justification to bear guns, let alone to take them around. I also would like to add that this increased violence happened after 10+ years of Conservative rule (you know, your friends), and there is an undeniable link between violence, poverty and austerity.


----------



## smf (Jun 2, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> I also would like to add that this increased violence happened after 10+ years of Conservative rule (you know, your friends), and there is an undeniable link between violence, poverty and austerity.


It's like the right wing want to create crime, so they can fight it themselves.


----------



## KennyAtom (Jun 2, 2022)

smf said:


> It's like the right wing want to create crime, so they can fight it themselves.


honestly I don't think crime is connected to any party, it's just crime, and it depends on how hard the specific political party fights it.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 2, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> from the same article:
> 
> "Although knife crime is on the increase, it should be seen in context. It's relatively unusual for a violent incident to involve a knife, and rarer still for someone to need hospital treatment.
> Most violence is caused by people hitting, kicking, shoving or slapping someone, sometimes during a fight and often when they're drunk; the police figures on violence also include crimes of harassment and stalking.
> ...


I’m not at all surprised that the BBC would spin the government’s yarn and blame the increase in knife crime on everything except the root causes. I’m also uninterested in their opinion, I’m only interested in the figures.


smf said:


> You are pretending that you can train everyone to defend themselves against an attacker. The problem is you can't solve the issue that bad guys will also be able to be trained, they will always be better prepared.
> 
> Knife and gun crime in the UK are both lower than the US.
> 
> ...


The fact that you can’t train everyone to defend themselves is an argument in favour of gun ownership, not against it. I didn’t say that increasing restrictions doesn’t yield results, I said that it’s a pendulum - it swings.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 2, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> honestly I don't think crime is connected to any party, it's just crime, and it depends on how hard the specific political party fights it.


Maybe, but it is connected to specific policies. Despite all the bluster, the link between poverty and crime exists. As does the link between crime by "common people" and unpunished crime perpetrated by politicians.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 2, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I’m not at all surprised that the BBC would spin the government’s yarn and blame the increase in knife crime on everything except the root causes. I’m also uninterested in their opinion, I’m only interested in the figures.


The BBC is a Tory mouthpiece, so...


----------



## V10lator (Jun 2, 2022)

I hear the argument "at the 50s scoolers was armed so there was no massacres" quite often. Did anyone follow this link? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States_(before_2000)

The fact that this was no massacres is pretty often that all they had was pistols, revolvers or shotguns. Just think what could have happened at these few examples if the scooler had access to fully-automatic military grade weapons:


> November 12, 1949: Ohio State University freshman James Heer took a .45-caliber handgun from the room of a Delta Tau Delta fraternity brother and killed 21-year-old Jack McKeown, a senior and fraternity brother.





> November 18, 1949: 16-year-old LaVon Cain of DuSable High School was shot to death at the school after a group of female students began shooting at another group of female students. The shooting was over domestic disputes that had occurred days prior.





> March 12, 1951: Professor W.E. Sweatt, superintendent and teacher at the Alexander School, was killed by 16-year-old Billy Ray Powell and 19-year-old Hugh Justice, students whom he had reprimanded. The boys fled and also shot Wade Johnson, 15, for reporting their rule infraction to Sweatt.





> April 8, 1952: A 15-year-old boarding school student shot a dean rather than give up his pin-up pictures of girls in bathing suits.





> January 11, 1955: After some of his dormmates urinated on his mattress during a hazing, Robert B. Bechtel, a 22-year-old student proctor at Swarthmore College, returned to his Wharton Hall dorm with a shotgun and killed fellow student 19-year-old Francis Holmes Strozier.





> May 4, 1956: 15-year-old student Billy Ray Prevatte fatally shot 32-year-old teacher Frazer Cameron and injured 25-year-old athletic coach Francis Daniel Wagner and 31-year-old teacher Robert Hicks at Maryland Park Junior High School. He left after waiting outside the principal's office for a reprimand due to failing to turn in a written physical education assignment; he returned with a rifle, shooting the three staff members.





> February 2, 1960: Hartford City, Indiana, Principal Leonard Redden shot and killed two teachers with a shotgun at William Reed Elementary School before fleeing into a remote forest, where he committed suicide.





> October 17, 1961: 14-year-old Tennyson Beard got into an argument with 15-year-old William Hachmeister at Morey Junior High School, shooting and wounding him. Another shot fatally struck 14-year-old Deborah Faith Humphrey. Beard attempted suicide but survived.





> April 27, 1966: 48-year-old teacher John S. Lane was fatally wounded when he tried to stop 16-year-old student James Arthur Frampton, who was armed with a shotgun and seeking boys he had argued with earlier that day. Lane died about six weeks later.





> August 1, 1966: University of Texas tower shooting: 25-year-old engineering student Charles Whitman fatally shot 15 people and wounded 31 more during a 96-minute shooting rampage from the observation deck of the university. He was shot and killed by police. He had earlier murdered his wife and his mother at their homes.



This dates back so much, the argument "everything was better in the past" just can't be valid:


> November 12, *1840*: John Anthony Gardner Davis, a law professor at the University of Virginia, was shot by student Joseph Semmes and died three days later.





> February 20, *1874*: After being ejected from school for disobedience, 20-year-old Thomas Squires fatally shot Prof. Hayes three times in the abdomen.



See, kids don't need to be insane to do this. They just need to have some hard time. Having a hard time is just normal in that age. Didn't you get bullied or even where a bully, too? These hard times are part of slowly transforming into an adult but at the point this happens they are just kids. Kids which should never ever have access to weapons.
Also you won't see this coming as a parent. Did your parents note you where getting bullied? Or in case you where the bully: Didn't you do anything to ensure the ones won't talk to their parents about such things?

//EDIT: So you can't blame the parents for not seeing things they can't see. You also can't blame the scoolers for acting immature as they are immature kids. What else is left to blame?


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 2, 2022)

V10lator said:


> The fact that this was no massacres is pretty often that all they had was pistols, revolvers or shotguns. Just think what could have happened at these few examples if the scooler had access *to fully-automatic military grade weapons:*


…school kids don’t have access to “fully-automatic military grade weapons”, almost nobody does. Fully automatic rifles, aka “assault rifles” are either heavily restricted (special permit required) or outright prohibited (based on calibre and other factors), along with destructive devices and all sorts of military weapons. There is no functional difference between the weapons used in the 50’s compared to weapons used today - semi-automatic autoloading rifles have existed for over a century now.

I always wonder where this weird myth is coming from, what causes this weird misconception that Americans are running around with machine guns and automatic rifles. Is it because modern, modular rifle platforms are “black and scary”? They’re not assault rifles, provided we agree that “assault rifles” are an actual class of rifle rather than a turn of phrase used to describe an automatic rifle, which is debatable.


----------



## V10lator (Jun 2, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> There is no functional difference between the weapons used in the 50’s compared to weapons used today





> *What Gun Was Used in The Texas School Shooting?*
> An AR-15 rifle was used
> 
> AR-15 weapons have become increasingly popular since 2004, _which was when a ban on federal assault weapons in the U.S. ended_.
> ...









Now re-read my examples: Nobody of the scoolers back in the days used such a beast but what they had access to back in the days: Revolvers, Pistols, Shotguns...


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 2, 2022)

V10lator said:


> Now re-read my examples: Nobody of the scoolers back in the days used such a beast but what they had access to back in the days: Revolvers, Pistols, Shotguns...


What point are you making? This is a normal semi-automatic rifle. I don’t see an automatic option on the selector, although the photo is admittedly blurry. It’s not “a beast”, it’s modern. An AR-15 is not a “military-grade weapon”. People who call it a military-grade weapon don’t know anything about firearms. This weapon is functionally no different than an equivalent semi-automatic rifle with a wooden stock. I don’t know why you’re bringing up the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 - you were talking about the 50’s. Make up your mind - what time do you want to argue about? In any case, point stands. Weapons used in the 50’s weren’t functionally different from the ones used now - they just looked different. The notion that people in the 50’s were limited to shotguns, revolvers and bolt-action rifles is untrue. In fact, people from some of the examples you cited had access to *more* dangerous weapons than what’s available today as many of those cases predate the National Firearms Act of 1923. You think 30 rounds is scary? Try 100 in a drum gun magazine, in a nice, compact submachine gun. There’s a reason why Tommy Guns were called “Chicago Typewriters”. The M1921 was fully automatic and available for civilian use since 1921. Nowadays an equivalent firearm would be an NFA-registered item only available in a handful of states, only from Class-3 dealers and requiring an extensive background check. It’s exceedingly difficult to obtain anything like this on the open market.


----------



## smf (Jun 2, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> The fact that you can’t train everyone to defend themselves is an argument in favour of gun ownership, not against it.


No, it's not. Because you have to train everyone, everyone has to own a gun and has to be walking around with a finger on a trigger completely expecting to be shot at any point & they can still get shot from behind.

Better that nobody has guns, than everyone has guns.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 2, 2022)

smf said:


> No, it's not. Because you have to train everyone, everyone has to own a gun and has to be walking around with a finger on a trigger completely expecting to be shot at any point & they can still get shot from behind.
> 
> Better that nobody has guns, than everyone has guns.


Disagreed. Safety is not worth striving for if it comes at the cost of liberty. Nobody *forces* you to be armed, but on the flip side, your desire to feel safe should not come at the cost of someone’s right to purchase whatever means of self-defense they deem appropriate. Guns are the great equaliser - 9mm hits just as hard when shot by a tall, strong man as it does when shot by a short, scrawny woman. It allows everyone capable of bearing arms the same level of defense, assuming adequate proficiency.


----------



## KennyAtom (Jun 2, 2022)

if someone would give up liberty for a little personal safety, they deserve neither, and will lose both. - Ben Franklin


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 2, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> if someone would give up liberty for a little personal safety, they deserve neither, and will lose both. - Ben Franklin


Not what the quote is about: https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/3902...t-its-context-in-21st-century?t=1654179141031

And secondly. It's not "little personal safety'. It's life or death.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 2, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> It's not "little personal safety'. It's life or death.


Exactly. That’s precisely why this right should never be infringed.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 2, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Exactly. That’s precisely why this right should never be infringed.


Not if preserving said right keeps causing death. Which is what's happening.


----------



## AlexMCS (Jun 2, 2022)

smf said:


> Better that nobody has guns, than everyone has guns.



How do you stop people from having guns? The cat is out of the bag. Guns exist.
There will always be someone who will have or make one.
You'd have to kill everyone in the world who has any notion of how a gun works (anyone older than 6), and delete all records of its existence, as well as similar contraptions, for it to stop being in someone's hands, and only for a while, mind you. Someone would inevitably invent it again.

Everyone having guns is a FAR better solution than a select few having them, as no one having them is impossible.

So let's be realistic.
I live in a country with rigid gun control, yet guns are the #1 cause of death in homicides over here.
Criminal organizations have tons of military grade guns.

Even if you move towards "more gun control", you end up with an abusive police force and open the country up to military coups.

Wake up.


----------



## appleburger (Jun 2, 2022)

AlexMCS said:


> How do you stop people from having guns? The cat is out of the bag. Guns exist.
> There will always be someone who will have or make one.
> You'd have to kill everyone in the world who has any notion of how a gun works (anyone older than 6), and delete all records of its existence, as well as similar contraptions, for it to stop being in someone's hands, and only for a while, mind you. Someone would inevitably invent it again.
> 
> ...


Oh wow.  I just looked up the Brazilian gun control history wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_c...firearms are,such as law enforcement officers.

According to the article's sources, gun control measures were initially followed by a drop in crime rate, but then a surge which included the highest rate of gun deaths in 35 years.  That's scary stuff.

@AlexMCS Are public shootings an issue there (compared to the US), as well?  Or is it more so the crime rate that's talked about?  I feel like in the US we've switched from crime rate as a talking point to these highly publicized shootings.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 2, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Not if preserving said right keeps causing death. Which is what's happening.


Driving keeps causing deaths every year too, and we’re at a point where technology allows us to put a stop to that with self-driving. Heck, where do you need to go so badly? The roads could exist for the purposes of commerce only, civilian use of roads is dangerous - think of the children. We can stop, or greatly diminish, traffic fatalities tomorrow. That doesn’t mean that the right to travel should be restricted - it never should.


----------



## djpannda (Jun 2, 2022)

AlexMCS said:


> Even if you move towards "more gun control", you end up with an abusive police force and open the country up to military coups.
> 
> Wake up.


yea.. I know look at all the 3rd world countries that restricted Guns. They have suffered Major military coups and the GANGS taking over... Look at.....UK... I mean Scotland........ I mean Australia ...noo Japan..
wait all those countries are 1st world Power houses with with LIMITED Gun deaths because they have Real Gun Laws.

looks like RIDICULOUS Gun deaths number are only a US problem ....

\


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 2, 2022)

djpannda said:


> yea.. I know look at all the 3rd world countries that restricted Guns. They have suffered Major military coups and the GANGS taking over... Look at.....UK... I mean Scotland........ I mean Australia ...noo Japan..
> wait all those countries are 1st world Power houses with with LIMITED Gun deaths because they have Real Gun Laws.
> 
> looks like RIDICULOUS Gun deaths number are only a US problem ....View attachment 312400\


I like how you’re including Ireland in the list - y’know, the country that suffers from regular terrorist/separatist attacks, including shootings and bombings. There hasn’t been a year since 1998 when the Real IRA hasn’t committed some kind of crime or attack on the public.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Real_Irish_Republican_Army_actions

Mostly peaceful, if you ignore regular bombings and shelling of government buildings with mortars.  Canada is a great example after The Honkening, as is Australia, Germany and most of the other countries on this list. I think the French Yellow Vests have a thing or two to say about government tyranny too, but who am I to judge?

I am yet to see someone actually describe what “sensible gun control” is. Anyone can buy an AR-15-style rifle in the UK with relative ease as long as they have a Section 1 license, and as long as it’s chambered in .22 Long Rifle they can even have it in semi-auto. They’re legal here. *Clearly* the platform itself is not the problem.


----------



## djpannda (Jun 2, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I like how you’re including Ireland in the list - y’know, the country that suffers from regular terrorist/separatist attacks, including shootings and bombings. There hasn’t been a year since 1998 when the Real IRA hasn’t committed some kind of crime or attack on the public.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Real_Irish_Republican_Army_actions
> 
> Mostly peaceful, if you ignore regular bombings and shelling of government buildings with mortars.  Canada is a great example after The Honkening, as is Australia, Germany and most of the other countries on this list. I think the French Yellow Vests have a thing or two to say about government tyranny too, but who am I to judge?


terrorist attacks are not the same as civil gun Death. Arming the Irish is not going to stop terrorist attacks, its going to increase the attack 100 folds as thats more Imperialism issue then a "Gun Violence"


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 2, 2022)

djpannda said:


> terrorist attacks are not the same as civil gun Death. Arming the Irish is not going to stop terrorist attacks, its going to increase the attack 100 folds as thats more Imperialism issue then a "Gun Violence"


That’s a very convenient caveat for you. From my perspective, a society that suffers from regular terrorist attacks has a good, sensible reason to own means of self-defense. You’re welcome to restrict that right to terrorists only though, they seem to be doing well enough to sport AK-47’s.


----------



## AncientBoi (Jun 2, 2022)

Republicans during a peaceful BLM Protest.






You think we forgot about this?

I sure as Fuq didn't


----------



## KennyAtom (Jun 2, 2022)

AncientBoi said:


> Republicans during a peaceful BLM Protest.
> 
> View attachment 312405
> 
> ...


didn't the protesters come back to harass them after the news reported on how their guns were taken by the police?

I think that they had purposes other than protesting if they were willing to go back and harass them after they protected their home.


----------



## AncientBoi (Jun 2, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> didn't the protesters come back to harass them after the news reported on how their guns were taken by the police?
> 
> I think that they had purposes other than protesting if they were willing to go back and harass them after they protected their home.



THEY [the dumbazz republicans] Should have never even brought them out!

They helped INCITE it even More!

Thus.. never mind.. I know where Your mind is made up on the subject.

As I will still say "Fuq The Republicans!" "PASS The Stronger Gun Laws Azzholes!"


----------



## djpannda (Jun 2, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> didn't the protesters come back to harass them after the news reported on how their guns were taken by the police?
> 
> I think that they had purposes other than protesting if they were willing to go back and harass them after they protected their home.


IF Someone I did not intend to confront or heck knew existed.. came out POINT several GUNs at me while I walk Next their house.. (because be honest the Crowd was caulk full of Minorities ), I would also hold a Grudge... as you know.... I don't like people Threatening me at Gun point because I "look" Menacing because of .......my melanin


----------



## KennyAtom (Jun 2, 2022)

AncientBoi said:


> THEY [the dumbazz republicans] Should have never even brought them out!


I mean, when they come back for you after it's revealed on the news that your guns were taken by the police, maybe your fears would be assured. I know mine would if they came back for my house after I lost my guns.


AncientBoi said:


> They helped INCITE it even More!


How exactly? They were just protecting their property.


AncientBoi said:


> Thus.. never mind.. I know where Your mind is made up on the subject.


It can change, it has changed before.


AncientBoi said:


> As I will still say "Fuq The Republicans!" "PASS The Stronger Gun Laws Azzholes!"


*Fuck
*Assholes

Horrible spellings aside, I agree on stronger background checks, they'll help.



djpannda said:


> IF Someone I did not intend to confront or heck knew existed.. came out POINT several GUNs at me while I walk Next their house.. (because be honest the Crowd was caulk full of Minorities ), I would also hold a Grudge... as you know.... I don't like people Threatening me because I look Menacing because of .......my melanin


Weren't they breaking into private property? It was a gated community.

They had every right to protect their house.

Ok, looking it up, yeah, they broke a law.

They were trespassing by breaking through the gate that stated it was private property.


----------



## AncientBoi (Jun 2, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> I mean, when they come back for you after it's revealed on the news that your guns were taken by the police, maybe your fears would be assured. I know mine would if they came back for my house after I lost my guns.
> 
> How exactly? They were just protecting their property.
> 
> ...



you've proven my point.


----------



## KennyAtom (Jun 2, 2022)

AncientBoi said:


> you've proven my point.


How exactly? I was kindly responding to your points, and countering with my points.

If anything, that disproves your points, since it proves I'm willing to listen and respond nicely.


----------



## AncientBoi (Jun 2, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> Ok, looking it up, yeah, they broke a law.
> 
> They were trespassing by breaking through the gate that stated it was private property.



Public Sidewalk is NOT "Private Property"


----------



## KennyAtom (Jun 2, 2022)

AncientBoi said:


> Public Sidewalk is NOT "Private Property"


No, it was a gated community, nothing was public about it.

The protesters were quite literally on private property at the time, you can protest on public sidewalks, but you can't break into gated communities and protest there, that's trespassing.


----------



## djpannda (Jun 2, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> Weren't they breaking into private property? It was a gated community.
> 
> They had every right to protect their house.


..... "protect" and irresponsibly and  Illegally brandish Weapons that lead to prosecution and lost of Gun Licenses are not the same thing  
​


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 2, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> BAD change is scary, like Brexit or Trump. Progressive change isn't.


All change is scary, even change you want. But the difference is acting upon said change. Look at the conservative platform; the whole party is against change, mainly because they're so safe and comfortable in their centuries old ways.



Foxi4 said:


> I live in the UK. Stabbings are as common as rain nowadays, I think I’d take my chances (given the option). The default answer to a rise in violence here is increasing restrictions, so we’re in a never-ending cycle of terrible events leading to a reduced capacity for self-defense. It makes no sense and leaves citizens vulnerable.
> 
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42749089.amp
> 
> I think the notion that higher levels of gun ownership would lead to good guy vs. bad guy shoot outs becoming commonplace is odd. The reason why I say that is because it’s not happening right now in areas with high gun ownership, and there’s no reason to suggest that’d change. We’re not talking about two armed posses clashing, old western movie-style - we’re talking about citizens intervening against one crazy person.





smf said:


> You don't have the means to fight back. All this completely unchecked US gun ownership does is kill kids and allow people to play cowboy.
> 
> If a tyrannical government took over the US (which it can't, because soldiers are people too) then you would not stand a chance going up against them anyway.


Something I find interesting is what's called the "Bystander Effect": https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect

In short, it's a psychological phenomenon where no one intervenes in a tragedy because everyone is convinced that someone else will handle it. Couple that with the idea that many people won't know how to deal with a sudden situation, and you have an explanation as to why in a large group of people, there might only be one or two people that actually do something. And of course you then have the people who impulsively act without thinking, and you now have a crowd of people, all with guns, most of who won't do anything, and the rest are mixed between the few who can and will and the few who try and don't know how to do anything. Statistically, these situations would often have more casualties than if the perpetrator was just allowed to empty their magazine and move on.

Of course the ideal solution would be to train every gun owner, but that brings us back to how and when we can do it.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 2, 2022)

It's good to know you're not allowed to protect your own private property anymore. In my eyes, they were nice about it. The guns they had weren't even loaded, and before that incident they were democrats. You come do that to my house and well....imma blast yo ass away to put it nicely lol


----------



## KennyAtom (Jun 2, 2022)

djpannda said:


> ..... "protect" and irresponsibly and  Illegally brandish Weapons that lead to prosecution and lost of Gun Licenses are not the same thing


They didn't lose their gun licenses, but their law ones were put on a probationary period.

Also they were pardoned anyway.

"In August 2021, they were both pardoned by Missouri governor Mike Parson. In February 2022, the Supreme Court of Missouri subjected the couple's law licenses to a one-year probationary period with a violation resulting in indefinite suspension."

Also, their guns were destroyed though, maybe that's what you were thinking of.

"On June 17, 2021, the McCloskeys pled guilty to misdemeanor offenses: Mark for fourth-degree assault, and Patricia for harassment. Mark was required to pay a $750 fine, and Patricia $2,000, and their guns used in the incident were required to be surrendered and destroyed."

Source : St. Louis gun-toting controversy | Wikipedia


----------



## AncientBoi (Jun 2, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> It's good to know you're not allowed to protect your own private property anymore. In my eyes, they were nice about it. The guns they had weren't even loaded, and before that incident they were democrats. You come do that to my house and well....imma blast yo ass away to put it nicely lol



They still didn't need to have brung out the guns.


----------



## KennyAtom (Jun 2, 2022)

Also, yes, they were trespassing at the time.

From the same source,

"On June 28, 2020, about 500 Black Lives Matter protesters entered Portland Place, a private gated neighborhood, in an attempt to walk to the home of St. Louis Mayor Lyda Krewson on an adjacent neighborhood street. "

private gated neighborhoods are closed off, entering them without having permission to enter is trespassing.


----------



## AlexMCS (Jun 2, 2022)

djpannda said:


> yea.. I know look at all the 3rd world countries that restricted Guns. They have suffered Major military coups and the GANGS taking over... Look at.....UK... I mean Scotland........ I mean Australia ...noo Japan..
> wait all those countries are 1st world Power houses with with LIMITED Gun deaths because they have Real Gun Laws.
> 
> looks like RIDICULOUS Gun deaths number are only a US problem ....View attachment 312400\



There is a link between education, poverty and deaths by gunshot.
They will obviously be lower on countries with better living conditions.
Your chart does nothing to address possible tyranny.
In fact, if a tyrant rose to power in most of these countries, the people would be completely powerless to stop them.

The issue in the US is purely one of mental health/culture/education.
If you "ban" guns, killing sprees will de done with blades, poison, illegal guns or worse: explosives.
It won't be a solution.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 2, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Something I find interesting is what's called the "Bystander Effect": https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect


The bystander effect hit those cops real hard as they were sitting outside of the classroom waiting for the janitor to give them the keys. Just saying. I personally like to have agency - I’m aware that I can “call the cops” and leave it to them, that doesn’t necessarily translate to me not wanting to be armed myself. I don’t expect others to step in and “save me” because I don’t believe in superheroes, along with Santa, the tooth fairy and other things that don’t exist. In fact, getting rid of the “cops = superheroes” mentality would also be a step forward in terms of police reform. They’re just people, we expect too much from them. I don’t want to get shot, they don’t want to get shot either.


----------



## djpannda (Jun 2, 2022)

AlexMCS said:


> There is a link between education, poverty and deaths by gunshot.
> They will obviously be lower on countries with better living conditions.
> Your chart does nothing to address possible tyranny.
> In fact, if a tyrant rose to power in most of these countries, the people would be completely powerless to stop them.
> ...


Gang Violence and crazy people will always exist but the difference is 300plus rounds vs A knife ?
You are talking about 100s of death vs 2-3  before they are stopped....
In most  these case.. NO "Good Guy" with a stopped these. It took a completely swat team to... (and like TX after all the carnage was done)


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 2, 2022)

djpannda said:


> In most  these case.. NO "Good Guy" with a stopped these. It took a completely swat team to... (and like TX after all the carnage was done)


It never happened. Not even last week, nu-uh.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61615236.amp

Good guy with a gun is just a myth…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Colorado_YWAM_and_New_Life_shootings

It literally never happens.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaughan_Foods_beheading_incident

I can go on all day, by the way.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 2, 2022)

AlexMCS said:


> There is a link between education, poverty and deaths by gunshot.
> They will obviously be lower on countries with better living conditions.
> Your chart does nothing to address possible tyranny.
> In fact, if a tyrant rose to power in most of these countries, the people would be completely powerless to stop them.
> ...



A lot of "ifs" based on conjecture. "If" a tyrant rises up. "If" guns are banned. I'm curious to know if anyone has come across any statistics that compare "terrorist" style activities with guns as opposed to other mediums of violence, such as knives and bombs. I know I can recall two instances of bombings in immediate American history (Oklahoma and the one that happened during that race, I can't recall what it was), but none of mass stabbings. I understand the point of "banning guns won't stop criminals", but then we keep letting the NRA and related gun manufacturers seep guns into society by the truck load and still refuse to do anything to prevent these instances from happening in any capacity. Even if it came down to halting gun sales while an effective plan was being implemented, that would still be a better plan than what we have now. 



BitMasterPlus said:


> It's good to know you're not allowed to protect your own private property anymore. In my eyes, they were nice about it. The guns they had weren't even loaded, and before that incident they were democrats. You come do that to my house and well....imma blast yo ass away to put it nicely lol



They came to harass the people after their guns were seized, and the protestors did trespass into a gated community (the idea of which is f*cking stupid. Might as well call it a gun free zone), but did they actually suffer any property damage of any kind? I get the point that they were probably radicalized by other instances of riot based violence, but if we're to assume that every protest will result in violence, then why didn't we start mowing down the republicans that stormed the Capitol? If one protest is more than enough to warrant instant retaliation at maximum aggression, then wouldn't every protest of any kind warrant that same mentality?


----------



## djpannda (Jun 2, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> It never happened. Not even last week, nu-uh.
> 
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61615236.amp







djpannda said:


> In most  these case..


but 5 in 200+ cases in 2022... is a joke


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 2, 2022)

djpannda said:


> but 5 in 200+ cases in 2022... is a joke


Judging by how mass shootings are classified in the U.S., that stat is Stretch Armstrong-levels of bunk. 200 mass shootings in 2022? Name them. Most of those instances are typical gang warfare, not “few lone gunmen opening fire on the public”.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 2, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> The bystander effect hit those cops real hard as they were sitting outside of the classroom waiting for the janitor to give them the keys.



Yeah you're telling me. I think everyone one of those cops should be fully retrained at the least, if not found guilty of insubordination. 



Foxi4 said:


> Just saying. I personally like to have agency - I’m aware that I can “call the cops” and leave it to them, that doesn’t necessarily translate to me not wanting to be armed myself. I don’t expect others to step in and “save me” because I don’t believe in superheroes, along with Santa, the tooth fairy and other things that don’t exist. In fact, getting rid of the cops = superheroes mentality would also be a step forward in terms of police reform.



You seem to forget not everyone has the same intelligence level that you or I may have.  I think my biggest concern when it comes to fielding everyone with guns is that, logically, a lot of people just aren't smart enough to understand the weight that responsibility bears. It's the stupid people, or at least the ones inefficient to handle the situation, that need cops the most, but then we hire those same people to be cops. At the risk of derailing the conversation to one that covers education in general, I fully believe the police force needs to be re-educated and reformed from the ground up.


----------



## AncientBoi (Jun 2, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Judging by how mass shootings are classified in the U.S., that stat is Stretch Armstrong-levels of bunk. 200 mass shootings in 2022? Name them. Most of those instances are typical gang warfare, not “few lone gunmen opening fire on the public”.



hmmmmm.. true point there.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 2, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Yeah you're telling me. I think everyone one of those cops should be fully retained at the least, if not found guilty of insubordination.


I disagree. We *do not* pay them to take bullets for us, they’re not expected to intervene unless they’re safe themselves. I can’t quite recall which case it was, but the Supreme Court ruled as much. I’ll have to look up the name of it, but the tl;dr was that the police is *not* obligated to step in when their life is in danger. It would be unreasonable and inhumane to think otherwise - they’re just people, not mercenaries.

EDIT: It was the DC Court of Appeals, but I’m sure there are many cases like this, I’d have to dig further.


SyphenFreht said:


> You seem to forget not everyone has the same intelligence level that you or I may have.  I think my biggest concern when it comes to fielding everyone with guns is that, logically, a lot of people just aren't smart enough to understand the weight that responsibility bears. It's the stupid people, or at least the ones inefficient to handle the situation, that need cops the most, but then we hire those same people to be cops. At the risk of derailing the conversation to one that covers education in general, I fully believe the police force needs to be re-educated and reformed from the ground up.


That’s not for me or you to judge, is it? Do you think the exercise of rights is contingent on the level of intelligence? Either we allow everyone to enjoy liberty or liberty doesn’t exist. We can’t condemn people *before* they break the law based on their immutable characteristics. You can make an argument based on criminal record, maybe even level of competence could be a limiting (not disqualifying) factor, but intelligence? That doesn’t sit well with me.


----------



## djpannda (Jun 2, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Judging by how mass shootings are classified in the U.S., that stat is Stretch Armstrong-levels of bunk. 200 mass shootings in 2022? Name them. Most of those instances are typical gang warfare, not “few lone gunmen opening fire on the public”.


...nice deflect, so you're shooting death in gang related shootings should not count? Mass shooting is random/non precision shooting  towards/within a group of 2 or more....

either way their not being stopped and its a problem that effects 3rd world countries and USA... but not in other "1st" world  countries


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 2, 2022)

djpannda said:


> ...nice deflect, so you're shooting death in gang related shootings should not count? Mass shooting is random/non precision shooting that in a toward/within a group of 2 or more....
> 
> either way their not being stopped and its a problem effects 3rd world countries and USA... but not in others countries


Not as a mass shooting, no. If you refuse to accept the example of terrorism, I refuse to accept the example of organised crime. A mass shooting, in the minds of the public, involves civilians. Gang warfare involves criminals acting as combatants. I can’t think of it any other way - you *just* said gang clashes would happen regardless, so you’re undercutting your own point for me. Those “other countries” have other problems - not a lot of mortars getting fired in the U.S. - but in your mind that “doesn’t count”.


----------



## djpannda (Jun 2, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Not as a mass shooting, no. If you refuse to accept the example of terrorism, I refuse to accept the example of organised crime. A mass shooting, in the mind of the public, involves civilians. Gang warfare involves criminals acting as combatants. I can’t think of it any other way - you *just* said gang clashes would happen regardless, so you’re undercutting your own point for me.


lol wait so you are demanding I recognition of terroist threat of Ireland as proof of Mass shooting death
. but refuse to Acknowledge US GUN Volience as a whole
even though Gun deaths in the last 10 years in Ireland  is equal to US gun deaths in a month.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 2, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I disagree. We *do not* pay them to take bullets for us, they’re not expected to intervene unless they’re safe themselves. I can’t quite recall which case it was, but the Supreme Court ruled as much. I’ll have to look up the name of it, but the tl;dr was that the police is *not* obligated to step in when their life is in danger. It would be unreasonable and inhumane to think otherwise - they’re just people, not mercenaries.



But they have operated under the guise of "protection"for as long as many people could remember, at least here in the states. See, if you take civilian protection out of the equation because cops aren't mercenaries, and then you take punishment out of the equation because that's what the courts decide, then what's left for cops to do besides terrorize civilians? I understand the Supreme Court ruling but, just like slavery, just because the Court ruled a specific way doesn't mean it isn't morally repugnant. I firmly believe a cop should protect just as much as serve, and if they're not given the equipment and training to do so then, well... Defund the Police, right? 



Foxi4 said:


> That’s not for me or you to judge, is it? Do you think the exercise of rights is contingent on the level of intelligence? Either we allow everyone to enjoy liberty or liberty doesn’t exist. We can’t condemn people *before* they break the law based on their immutable characteristics. You can make an argument based on criminal record, maybe even level of competence could be a limiting (not disqualifying) factor, but intelligence? That doesn’t sit well with me.



Judge? Of course. Enact laws based on such judgements? Well probably not, because I personally have immense bias in multiple areas and would not make accurate judgements against the majority. However, that's why I'm not a politician either. 

It may not sit well with you, and that's ok, because the point isn't necessarily to demonize those of a lesser intelligence. It's meant to portray that, in America at least, we have a serious education problem, especially with that of mental illness. I'm not trying to say stupid people shouldn't have guns, but I do hesitate to see a nation where the average IQ is the same size as my shoe and everyone has guns. To me it seems reminiscent of Idiocracy, but everyone's a right wing Republican with an itchy trigger finger and nothing to scratch. 

Unbiased education needs to be on the forefront in regards to these tragedies, and that's going to be hard because everyone has an agenda and, thanks to the rapid age of technology, everyone has the ability to push their agenda globally.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 2, 2022)

djpannda said:


> lol wait so you are demanding I recognition of terroist threat of Ireland as proof of Mass shooting death
> . but refuse to Acknowledge US GUN Volience as a whole
> even though Gun deaths in the last 10 years in Ireland  is equal to US gun deaths in a month.


That’s not what I said. I said that the ever-present danger of terrorism from separatist groups is adequate justification for bearing arms for the purposes of self-defense.


SyphenFreht said:


> But they have operated under the guise of "protection"for as long as many people could remember, at least here in the states. See, if you take civilian protection out of the equation because cops aren't mercenaries, and then you take punishment out of the equation because that's what the courts decide, then what's left for cops to do besides terrorize civilians? I understand the Supreme Court ruling but, just like slavery, just because the Court ruled a specific way doesn't mean it isn't morally repugnant. I firmly believe a cop should protect just as much as serve, and if they're not given the equipment and training to do so then, well... Defund the Police, right?


They exist to give tickets and take crime reports. They do some investigative work. They enforce the law in ways that don’t endanger their health and safety. They’re not meant to counter lethal threats, although they do receive basic training in doing so due to their unique workplace hazards. Logically the first person at the scene with a vested interest in protecting your safety is you - you should ensure your own safety first and foremost, as opposed to putting all your eggs in one basket and treating a 911 call as calling Batman. What you’re thinking of is Special Weapons And Tactics, and even those guys aren’t technically required to risk their life - they’re just trained and equipped to take out threats without taking as much of a risk. It doesn’t matter what “impression” they give and what people “think” about them - they have no duty to protect. The case was Warren v. District of Columbia. The ruling was that the police has no constitutional duty to protect a person from harm.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia


SyphenFreht said:


> Judge? Of course. Enact laws based on such judgements? Well probably not, because I personally have immense bias in multiple areas and would not make accurate judgements against the majority. However, that's why I'm not a politician either.
> 
> It may not sit well with you, and that's ok, because the point isn't necessarily to demonize those of a lesser intelligence. It's meant to portray that, in America at least, we have a serious education problem, especially with that of mental illness. I'm not trying to say stupid people shouldn't have guns, but I do hesitate to see a nation where the average IQ is the same size as my shoe and everyone has guns. To me it seems reminiscent of Idiocracy, but everyone's a right wing Republican with an itchy trigger finger and nothing to scratch.
> 
> Unbiased education needs to be on the forefront in regards to these tragedies, and that's going to be hard because everyone has an agenda and, thanks to the rapid age of technology, everyone has the ability to push their agenda globally.


I try not to judge, lest I be judged. I may have an opinion on someone, that doesn’t give me the authority to dictate what they can or can’t do.


----------



## KennyAtom (Jun 2, 2022)

fun fact : mass shootings are also counted as 3 or more injured, meaning that some statistics are, for a lack of a better term, rubbish.


----------



## djpannda (Jun 2, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> That’s not what I said. I said that the ever-present danger of terrorism from separatist groups is adequate justification for bearing arms for the purposes of self-defense.


... and MY augment is Gun Deaths in General...  As my previous post, Countries with Strong Gun laws have extremely low to no Gun Deaths per Capita VS the US.  
and Those countries have not falling to Tyrannic Leaderships that Took over the Government and State





C


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 2, 2022)

djpannda said:


> ... and MY augment is Gun Deaths in General...  As my previous post, Countries with Strong Gun laws have extremely low to no Gun Deaths per Capita VS the US.
> and Those countries have not falling to Tyrannic Leaderships that Took over the Government and State
> 
> 
> View attachment 312416C


Posting the same graph twice isn’t making a better point than before. Whether those countries are subject to government tyranny or not is in the eye of the beholder - I have a feeling we would disagree on that point.


----------



## djpannda (Jun 2, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Posting the same graph twice isn’t making a better point than before. Whether those countries are subject to government tyranny or not is in the eye of the beholder - I have a feeling we would disagree on that point.


We would Disagree, as every other country on the Graph are a Democratic Republic ( or similar) that are not only secure but leaders in Word affairs (minus Spain as they going thru things) . They have not recent or pending turmoil that justifies "civilian defense of Miliarty style Assault rifles and 300+ rounds"  ( not including Russian issue but thats another thing ) and in turn the Civilian gun deaths of the world is less then the US


----------



## AncientBoi (Jun 2, 2022)

djpannda said:


> lol wait so you are demanding I recognition of terroist threat of Ireland as proof of Mass shooting death
> . but refuse to Acknowledge US GUN Volience as a whole
> even though Gun deaths in the last 10 years in Ireland  is equal to US gun deaths in a month.



oooww a reference to "Bloody Sunday"?


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 2, 2022)

djpannda said:


> We would Disagree, as every other country on the Graph are a Democratic Republic ( or similar) that are not only secure but leaders in Word affairs (minus Spain as they going thru things) . They have not recent or pending turmoil that justifies "civilian defense of Miliarty style Assault rifles and 300+ rounds"  ( not including Russian issue but thats another thing ) and in turn the Civilian gun deaths of the world is less then the US


Oh, then we would definitely disagree, given the metrics you’ve chosen. Of course that’s fine - we just happen to disagree on what government overreach constitutes.


----------



## djpannda (Jun 2, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Oh, then we would definitely disagree, given the metrics you’ve chosen. Of course that’s fine - we just happen to disagree on what government overreach constitutes.


Government overreach that can be changed in the next 1-2 election cycle  vs Tryannical Government that needs to be overthrow with Arm Civilians are two different things


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 2, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> They exist to give tickets and take crime reports. They do some investigative work. They enforce the law in ways that don’t endanger their health and safety. They’re not meant to counter lethal threats, although they do receive basic training in doing so due to their unique workplace hazards. Logically the first person at the scene with a vested interest in protecting your safety is you - you should ensure your own safety first and foremost, as opposed to putting all your eggs in one basket and treating a 911 call as calling Batman. What you’re thinking of is Special Weapons And Tactics, and even those guys aren’t technically required to risk their life - they’re just trained and equipped to take out threats without taking as much of a risk. It doesn’t matter what “impression” they give and what people “think” about them - they have no duty to protect. The case was Warren v. District of Columbia. The ruling was that the police has no constitutional duty to protect a person from harm.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia



Another example of how a lack of clear unbiased education coupled with biased propaganda can lead to ineffective strategies and poor decision making. We've been taught for years to call 911 in the instance of an emergency just to have the cops come, stand around for a bit, and then do nothing. 

Kinda breeds the question of why there has been this idea presented for so long that you shouldn't have guns and should rely on the police instead when it's been proven that they're unreliable at best. If the police are meant to simply harass people with tickets and enforce an atmosphere of fear, what will happen when everyone has gun access and start brazenly opening fire on the police? Will that be the beginning of civil war? 

I appreciate the article share. I didn't know of that ruling before hand. I am curious though to know if Nichol was any ethnicity other than white (I couldn't find anything); the other three appellants were women, during a time when women were still "generally" regarded as inferior, and there was another related case where the appellant was of a latino-ethnic background, and female. (Why bring race and sex into it? It could be correlation not causation, but with the rich bigoted history America has, I feel it's at least deserving of acknowledgement, even if it falls through) 



Foxi4 said:


> I try not to judge, lest I be judged. I may have an opinion on someone, that doesn’t give me the authority to dictate what they can or can’t do.



Which is why we're debating, not out actively trying to change laws. I can judge all day long, heaven knows I'm judged, but I also know I wouldn't be good to make majority scale decisions either.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 2, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> That’s a very convenient caveat for you. From my perspective, a society that suffers from regular terrorist attacks has a good, sensible reason to own means of self-defense. You’re welcome to restrict that right to terrorists only though, they seem to be doing well enough to sport AK-47’s.


And yet the Irish themselves disagree with you, so clearly you're just being your usual self-serving self.

3 more active shootings in the US btw. Ah yes, it's obvious that gun rights are IN PERIL!


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 2, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> And yet the Irish themselves disagree with you, so clearly you're just being your usual self-serving self.


Someone hasn’t heard about The Troubles, or how the government tricked the Irish into surrendering their pistols and rifles in 1972, under the pretense that the seizure was “temporary”, only to turn around and say that the associated licenses have “expired” by the time the order itself did and never actually return them.


SyphenFreht said:


> Another example of how a lack of clear unbiased education coupled with biased propaganda can lead to ineffective strategies and poor decision making. We've been taught for years to call 911 in the instance of an emergency just to have the cops come, stand around for a bit, and then do nothing.
> 
> Kinda breeds the question of why there has been this idea presented for so long that you shouldn't have guns and should rely on the police instead when it's been proven that they're unreliable at best. If the police are meant to simply harass people with tickets and enforce an atmosphere of fear, what will happen when everyone has gun access and start brazenly opening fire on the police? Will that be the beginning of civil war?
> 
> ...


I don’t think race had any impact on the ruling, it had more to do with the court’s interpretation of the public duty doctrine.


djpannda said:


> Government overreach that can be changed in the next 1-2 election cycle  vs Tryannical Government that needs to be overthrow with Arm Civilians are two different things


Tyranny is not a flick of a switch, it’s death by a million cuts. You don’t just wake up one day and the government is tyrannical all of a sudden, it’s a gradual process, a path paved with small, tyrannical decisions of increasing egregiousness, unless it is installed via violent revolution. Usually it’s more akin to boiling a frog slowly - you don’t realise it until it’s too late.


Dark_Ansem said:


> 3 more active shootings in the US btw. Ah yes, it's obvious that gun rights are IN PERIL!


They’re always in peril. I hope the American people never bow down and sacrifice their liberty for a false promise of “safety”.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 2, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Someone hasn’t heard about The Troubles, or how the government tricked the Irish into surrendering their pistols and rifles in 1972, under the pretense that the seizure was “temporary”, only to turn around and say that the associated licenses have “expired” by the time the order itself did and never actually return them.


It's not 1972 anymore. By now I'm sure they'd have asked them back. And it wasn't gun ownership that ended the Troubles, it was the intervention of the US and the EU via the GFA. You know, the same one your beloved Tory ImBrexiles are thrashing.


Foxi4 said:


> They’re always in peril. I hope the American people never bow down and sacrifice their liberty for a false promise of “safety”.


Except that it's not a false promise is it? It only happens in America, therefore the promise of safety is real.


----------



## djpannda (Jun 2, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Tyranny is not a flick of a switch, it’s death by a million cuts. You don’t just wake up one day and the government is tyrannical all of a sudden, it’s a gradual process, a path paved with small, tyrannical decisions of increasing egregiousness, unless it is installed via violent revolution. Usually it’s more akin to boiling a frog slowly - you don’t realise it until it’s too late.


than why stop there ..EVERYone needs mini Nukes and Bomb shelters.. because Neighbor BOB down the street might have one.

but your right its not a flick of a switch .. its a slow burn like Russia
Restricting a Miliarty style Assualt Rife that shoots 60 rounds a min, that is the weapon of choice to shoot Kinder-gardeners  in the face (while still allowing you to have umlimited other Normal guns and Ammo) is not a "slow Burn"


----------



## djpannda (Jun 2, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Except that it's not a false promise is it? It only happens in America, therefore the promise of safety is real.


lol that one went over my head, but your right that "promise of not dying of Gun violence" is real every where but the US


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 2, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I don’t think race had any impact on the ruling, it had more to do with the court’s interpretation of the public duty doctrine.



It's entirely possible you could be correct, but I wonder how many times this same verdict has been applied in situations where the appellants were unequivocally white males. Again, I won't derail, but I'm sure all of us here are smart enough to know that no man is unbiased, even judges, and with as much bigotry as what America has stood for, it's not without the realm of thinking that race and gender could've greatly influenced the verdict. On the other hand, statistical data that would support either side of the claim is pretty much nonexistent, so it's hard to argue my point with validity. But if I were to argue on a hunch? I'd say race, gender, even community played an important role.

I wonder what the argument would be on police officers who are commended for going above and beyond their duty; if one officer put their life on the line to save an innocent, do you think it's a reasonable expectation, from the perspective of the majority, to feel that behavior should be exercised across the entire police force? If not, how do we go about educating one another on what the police force actually is without coming across as antagonistic?  ("Blue Lives Matter!")


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 2, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> It's not 1972 anymore. By now I'm sure they'd have asked them back. And it wasn't gun ownership that ended the Troubles, it was the intervention of the US and the EU via the GFA. You know, the same one your beloved Tory ImBrexiles are thrashing.
> 
> Except that it's not a false promise is it? It only happens in America, therefore the promise of safety is real.


I have no comment on this. We *just* discussed the persisting conflict between the Irish and the British, but you do you. 


djpannda said:


> than why stop there ..EVERYone needs mini Nukes and Bomb shelters.. because Neighbor BOB down the street might have one.
> 
> but your right its not a flick of a switch .. its a slow burn like Russia
> Restricting a Miliarty style Assualt Rife that shots 60 rounds a min, that is the weapon of choice to shoot Kinder-gardeners  in the face (while still allowing you to have umlimited other Normal guns and Ammo) is not a "slow Burn"


Civilians should have access to the same weapons as the government and there is no legitimate reason why they shouldn’t. If we’re keeping score, so far I’ve killed zero people, compared to the government which kills thousands both abroad and at home. Statistically I’m a more responsible prospective gun owner. See? We can both be silly all day - not sure if that’s productive though. I’m also not going to accept the “military-style asssult rifle” moniker since the weapons in question aren’t “military-style” in any shape or form. The current U.S. Military standard service rifle, the M4A1, shoots 5.56mm carbine at a rate of 700-950 rounds per minute (not that rate of fire is an indicator of destructive force). Similar shape, same platform of origin, *very* different weapon.


djpannda said:


> lol that one went over my head, but your right that "promise of not dying of Gun violence" is real every where but the US


I don’t need the government to promise me that. In fact, I’m not asking for it either. I’ll take the right to bear arms over this risk any time, if given the choice.



SyphenFreht said:


> It's entirely possible you could be correct, but I wonder how many times this same verdict has been applied in situations where the appellants were unequivocally white males. Again, I won't derail, but I'm sure all of us here are smart enough to know that no man is unbiased, even judges, and with as much bigotry as what America has stood for, it's not without the realm of thinking that race and gender could've greatly influenced the verdict. On the other hand, statistical data that would support either side of the claim is pretty much nonexistent, so it's hard to argue my point with validity. But if I were to argue on a hunch? I'd say race, gender, even community played an important role.
> 
> *I wonder what the argument would be on police officers who are commended for going above and beyond their duty; if one officer put their life on the line to save an innocent, do you think it's a reasonable expectation, from the perspective of the majority, to feel that behavior should be exercised across the entire police force?* If not, how do we go about educating one another on what the police force actually is without coming across as antagonistic?  ("Blue Lives Matter!")


I think you just accidentally discovered what the “above and beyond the call of duty” designation means. It is very honourable behaviour worthy of praise. It’s above and beyond their call of duty, in the most literal sense. They are not expected to risk life and limb in the service of the public - those who do are honoured and distinguished above the rest. “Blue Lives Matter” in the sense that they do put their life on the line as they perform their duties, but the notion that they’re expected to, or that they die in droves in the process of performing their duties, is just a myth - the numbers don’t bear that out. In 2021 the leading cause of death of police officers was… COVID 19. Only 58 were killed with firearms, and that number was unusually high that year, normally it’s much less. They don’t “get killed” that often, if you consider how often they intervene in a country with 120+ firearms per 100 citizens. You’d think they get filled with lead regularly, but they’re just not - it’s a myth.

https://www.npr.org/2022/01/12/1072411820/law-enforcement-deaths-2021-covid


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 2, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I think you just accidentally discovered what the “above and beyond the call of duty” designation means. It is very honourable behaviour worthy of praise. It’s above and beyond their call of duty, in the most literal sense. They are not expected to risk life and limb in the service of the public - those who do are honoured and distinguished above the rest.


 
But that's kinda my point. I understand the police force shouldn't be held to the standard of the majority perspective, but if after 50+ years of indoctrination the people fully believe the police should be some superhero level authority meant to protect the citizens, how does that perspective change without demonizing the police force as a whole? How do we go about ensuring that people understand the difference between legally carrying a gun and not relying on the police to protect without blurring the line that separates common sense and morality?  Can we give guns to every person and walk away with less casualties? Can we assume that people with guns will settle their disputes morally and legally when there's little to no preventative measures (because obviously the police force isn't meant to do so, though that's not to say they never have?) being taken?


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 2, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> But that's kinda my point. I understand the police force shouldn't be held to the standard of the majority perspective, but if after 50+ years of indoctrination the people fully believe the police should be some superhero level authority meant to protect the citizens, how does that perspective change without demonizing the police force as a whole? How do we go about ensuring that people understand the difference between legally carrying a gun and not relying on the police to protect without blurring the line that separates common sense and morality?  Can we give guns to every person and walk away with less casualties? Can we assume that people with guns will settle their disputes morally and legally when there's little to no preventative measures (because obviously the police force isn't meant to do so, though that's not to say they never have?) being taken?


You’re asking me how to stop people from worshiping the government. Libertarians have been trying to do that for a couple of centuries, I don’t have an answer for you, I only have figures.  They really don’t get killed that often - most of their deaths are due to occupational hazards (traffic collisions and so on), few get shot, statistically speaking.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 2, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I have no comment on this. We *just* discussed the persisting conflict between the Irish and the British, but you do you.


Yes, we discussed the conflict and you were, once again, wrong.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 2, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> You’re asking me how to stop people from worshiping the government. Libertarians have been trying to do that for a couple of centuries, I don’t have an answer for you, I only have figures.  They really don’t get killed that often - most of their deaths are due to occupational hazards (traffic collisions and so on), few get shot, statistically speaking.



It's an endless cycle of unanswered questions and hypotheticals. I just know that, if the verdict comes down to arming as many civilians as possible, massive police force reform will have to follow, even if that means also reforming how we perceive the police force. Otherwise, I get the feeling that civil war will sit precariously upon that fence, even moreso than it might be now.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 2, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Yes, we discussed the conflict and you were, once again, wrong.


Not a single year since 1998 without a bombing, a mortar shelling or a shooting. Not one year.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 2, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Not a single year since 1998 without a bombing, a mortar shelling or a shooting. Not one year.


And you think that gun ownership would prevent bombing or mortar shellings, how, exactly? You're very fond of equating correlation with causation.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 2, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> It's an endless cycle of unanswered questions and hypotheticals. I just know that, if the verdict comes down to arming as many civilians as possible, massive police force reform will have to follow, even if that means also reforming how we perceive the police force. Otherwise, I get the feeling that civil war will sit precariously upon that fence, even moreso than it might be now.


Oh, the fact that citizens are armed is *part* of the reason why the U.S. police is so trigger happy. Whenever they approach a civilian, odds are that civilian is armed, so every single encounter is de facto considered potentially lethal for the officer. Every single one is a risk. The solution to police brutality is reducing the number of encounters - greatly reduce the number of petty crimes like possession, remove quotas and train the police not to be busy bodies - when the police are busy bodies, people die. It’s not intentional, it’s not racism, it’s just something that happens with those variables at play.


Dark_Ansem said:


> And you think that gun ownership would prevent bombing or mortar shellings, how, exactly? You're very fond of equating correlation with causation.


I think that annual terrorist attacks are reasonable justification for requiring a self-defense weapon. I haven’t said anything else on the matter.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 2, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Oh, the fact that citizens are armed is *part* of the reason why the U.S. police is so trigger happy. Whenever they approach a civilian, odds are that civilian is armed, so every single encounter is de facto considered potentially lethal for the officer.


And yet the ones that tend to die are blacks, who are unarmed. Or black women in their own house. Or black unarmed teens.



Foxi4 said:


> I think that annual terrorist attacks are reasonable justification for requiring a self-defense weapon. I haven’t said anything else on the matter.


And again, you're the only one to think so. The Irish don't, the British don't. Makes one think, hmmm, that maybe your ideas aren't all they're cracked up to be. Then again, you were saying that the Durham probe would lead to a "reckoning" and instead, well, it ended up being a bust.

Whoops: https://www.insider.com/tulsa-gunman-bought-rifle-hours-before-hospital-mass-shooting-police-2022-6


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 2, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> And yet the ones that tend to die are blacks, who are unarmed. Or black women in their own house. Or black unarmed teens.


That’s not what the statistics show. When adequate controls are applied, black suspects are *less* likely to be shot by the police compared to white suspects. They are, however, more likely to be “roughed up” as they’re arrested.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/...police-use-of-force-but-not-in-shootings.html

It’s likely that officers are subconsciously more careful *not* to shoot unnecessarily if the suspect is black as doing so would be potentially interpreted as racial bias in the current climate, so they opt for more physical means of subduing the suspect, which sadly often ends in tragedy.

There is no concrete evidence of racial bias in more general terms - statistically speaking, people who engage in more criminal activities tend to have more engagements with the police, and every engagement with the police is potentially fatal. The likelyhood of death in an engagement favour black suspects over white ones, the problem is that black suspects have significantly more engagements as they happen to occupy more crime-ridden areas. To put it in simpler terms, the odds are the same/similar, the volume is different.


Dark_Ansem said:


> And again, you're the only one to think so. The Irish don't, (…)


That’s why they plant bombs, shoot mortars and automatic weapons at British security forces. I completely understand. As a side note, I have never advertised my ideas as “popular”, that’s hardly a pre-requisite for them being good.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 2, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> It’s likely that officers are subconsciously more careful *not* to shoot unnecessarily if the suspect is black as doing so would be potentially interpreted as racial bias in the current climate, so they opt for more physical means of subduing the suspect, which sadly often ends in tragedy.
> 
> There is no concrete evidence of racial bias in more general terms - statistically speaking, people who engage in more criminal activities tend to have more engagements with the police, and every engagement with the police is potentially fatal. The actual likelihood of death in an engagement actually favours black suspect, the problem is that black suspects have significantly more engagements as they happen to occupy more crime-ridden areas. To put it in simpler terms, the odds are the same, the volume is different.


And of course this isn't related at all to the fact policemen tend to be more suspicious of non-whites, not at all.


Foxi4 said:


> That’s why they plant bombs, shoot mortars and automatic weapons at British security forces. I completely understand.


Yes that would be fine and dandy if the british were demanding more gun ownership rights, but they aren't. So again, your interpretation is clearly detached from reality.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 2, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> And of course this isn't related at all to the fact policemen tend to be more suspicious of non-whites, not at all.
> 
> Yes that would be fine and dandy if the british were demanding more gun ownership rights, but they aren't. So again, your interpretation is clearly detached from reality.


Someone’s certainly detached from reality if you can’t make reasonable conclusions based on data provided. It is abundantly clear that a segment of the Irish population feels that they’re under tyrannical rule, and they’re willing to use violent methods in order to change that. It is fair to assume that the cogs of history would’ve possibly turned differently had they not been disarmed. In any case, the Ukrainians are currently enjoying their right to bear arms with glee, rightfully shooting at invaders and being an example of civilian gun use for the public good. Hopefully those newly-earned rights will not be taken away immediately after their victory, and they will win, judging by how things are going for Russia.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 2, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Someone’s certainly detached from reality if you can’t make reasonable conclusions based on data provided. It is abundantly clear that a segment of the Irish population feels that they’re under tyrannical rule, and they’re willing to use violent methods in order to change that. It is fair to assume that the cogs of history would’ve possibly turned differently had they not been disarmed. In any case, the Ukrainians are currently enjoying their right to bear arms with glee, rightfully shooting at invaders and being an example of civilian gun use for the public good. Hopefully those newly-earned rights will not be taken away immediately after their victory, and they will win, judging by how things are going for Russia.


Yes, YOU are the one detached from reality, equating being invaded by a far-right dictator to everyday life in the west. They're the only one justified to do so. Americans are not being invaded by anybody. Neither are Irish or British.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 2, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Yes, YOU are the one detached from reality, equating being invaded by a far-right dictator to everyday life in the west.


I’m not equating anything. I am saying that citizens have an inherent right to defend themselves from threats both foreign and domestic, and any infringement of that right is an assault on liberty, regardless of what cost that liberty comes at.


----------



## AleronIves (Jun 2, 2022)

It seems to me that you're making quite a logical leap from "People have the right to defend themselves," to "People have the right to use the same weapons as the military." Having the right to defend yourself does not necessarily mean you have the right to unlimited access to the weapons of your choice. Should citizens have access to tanks, missles, and nukes? Most people would probably say no, and barring access to certain types of guns or requiring licensing to be able to purchase them hardly seems equivalent to taking away people's right to self defense. There are other methods you can use to defend yourself besides semi-automatic rifles, including other types of guns that have lower capacity.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 2, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> It seems to me that you're making quite a logical leap from "People have the right to defend themselves," to "People have the right to use the same weapons as the military." Having the right to defend yourself does not necessarily mean you have the right to unlimited access to the weapons of your choice. Should citizens have access to tanks, missles, and nukes? Most people would probably say no, and barring access to certain types of guns or requiring licensing to be able to purchase them hardly seems equivalent to taking away people's right to self defense. There are other methods you can use to defend yourself besides semi-automatic rifles, including other types of guns that have lower capacity.


I’m a second amendment absolutist, if that’s what you’re asking. The authors of the constitution made it very clear that citizens should be capable of standing up to the state, should such a need arise. We know this not just from the constitution itself, but also their other writings. It’s logical to conclude that in order to do so, you’d need equivalent weaponry, and the ability to organise, if you so choose. This is further backed by the fact that until recently (in historical terms) no specific restrictions existed. Private citizens were perfectly capable of purchasing weapons of the same or often better quality than those of the state, including cannons, machine guns and other banned/heavily restricted arms.

The discussion about owning nukes is silly - the infrastructure to launch a nuclear warhead is prohibitively expensive to any one individual, so it’s a silly point. Tanks on the other hand, I have no problem with - sounds fun. It’s not like people *can’t* build one - ever heard of the Killdozer guy? You give a dedicated and driven man a torch and armor plates and no amount of government regulation will stop him. Very sad story, but at least nobody got hurt in the process besides the driver himself who chose to commit suicide rather than be arrested.

In any case, back to gun control. I didn’t use to think like this when I was younger, but my view on the matter changed over time, in favour of individual freedoms and personal responsibility rather than over-reliance on the government. I still support some degree of sensible gun control, but not in the way it’s currently implemented, nor what is proposed. Ultimately I see no legitimate reason why the state would have any authority over what I can or cannot own - I shouldn’t be *preemptively* penalised, I haven’t committed any crimes, nor do I intend to. If the government thinks that a specific individual poses a danger to society, it should be able to provide evidence to support that claim. “You can’t own X because you *might* do something illegal with it” is not a logical argument - I “might do something illegal” with a lot of things I readily have access to, and I don’t.


----------



## AleronIves (Jun 3, 2022)

Since you live in the UK, what made you feel so strongly about the US's Second Amendment? (I'm just curious.)


----------



## Valwinz (Jun 3, 2022)

Tulsa Police: 5 dead, including the shooter. Gunman identified as a black male. A rifle & handgun were used. 

I wonder why none one is talking about this one


----------



## pustal (Jun 3, 2022)

Valwinz said:


> Tulsa Police: 5 dead, including the shooter. Gunman identified as a black male. A rifle & handgun were used.
> 
> I wonder why none one is talking about this one


They aren't? Been all over Reddit. Now imagine if he had an AR-15, how much more damage he would have done.


----------



## Valwinz (Jun 3, 2022)

pustal said:


> They aren't? Been all over Reddit. Now imagine if he had an AR-15, how much more damage he would have done.


barely seen it in twitter


----------



## pustal (Jun 3, 2022)

Valwinz said:


> barely seen it in twitter


----------



## KennyAtom (Jun 3, 2022)

guns will never go away, what's the point of arguing about it?


----------



## tabzer (Jun 3, 2022)

pustal said:


> View attachment 312470



That was buried pretty quickly.  Probably because it looks reasonable compared to all the stories that you can select from.


----------



## pustal (Jun 3, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> guns will never go away, what's the point of arguing about it?


Just because an issue bothers you being talked, it won't go away or stopped being discussed. Children and others have been killed over and over again by people without either mental conditions or moral guidelines that should have never access to a gun, let alone a military-grade semi-automatic - had simply access to that weapon. It may bother you this is being talked, but it bothers much more 19 pairs of parents in Texas no longer being able to kiss their kids goodnight, as it much bother the rest of society with th eleast bit of compassion or fear for their children or themselves.


----------



## tabzer (Jun 3, 2022)

This thread makes me think a lot.  We have people claiming that home invaders and potential rapists only arm themselves out of self-defense against their potential victims, that you should disarm yourself so that they might return the favor out of some non-existing virtue.  We have people arguing that being a lawless mob is "harmless" and "non-threatening" because of "melanin".  We have people suggesting that you should "trust" people, but not in a world where they are allowed to have guns.  We have people suggesting that having testosterone makes them a rapist. 

If I were to describe this as a debate between two sides (it isn't), you have one group that just wants to keep what they have, then you have another group that knows what it wants to take and is willing to do whatever is necessary to do so.  One side argues the existence of personal accountability and the other argues its irrelevance.  

That being pointed out, I wouldn't be comfortable around some of you unless I had a gun.  If the world is crazy, statistics verifying, I'd want a gun to have a fighting chance.  Those arguing against have only proved that they'd argue that my hypothetical death is a preferred statistic and that I shouldn't complain about it.


----------



## KennyAtom (Jun 3, 2022)

pustal said:


> Just because an issue bothers you being talked, it won't go away or stopped being discussed.


It doesn't really bother me, but it is pointless considering the NRA will never budge.


pustal said:


> Children and others have been killed over and over again by people without either mental conditions or moral guidelines that should have never access to a gun


I agree, we need better background checks.


pustal said:


> let alone a military-grade semi-automatic


And that's how I can tell you've never touched a gun before. Military grade means it was made by the lowest bidder, not that it is the best gun that anyone in the world could ever use.


pustal said:


> It may bother you this is being talked, but it bothers much more 19 pairs of parents in Texas no longer being able to kiss their kids goodnight, as it much bother the rest of society with th eleast bit of compassion or fear for their children or themselves.


And that is sad, and this should be discussed.

We just shouldn't expect anything to happen with it.


----------



## pustal (Jun 3, 2022)

tabzer said:


> That was buried pretty quickly.  Probably because it looks reasonable compared to all the stories that you can select from.



Here's USA:






KennyAtom said:


> And that's how I can tell you've never touched a gun before. Military grade means it was made by the lowest bidder, not that it is the best gun that anyone in the world could ever use.


The M16 used by the US military is literally an adaptation of the AR-15. The AR-15 was designed to meet the US army needs after WW2 and the Korean war.

And this is what it does:


----------



## KennyAtom (Jun 3, 2022)

pustal said:


> The M16 used by the US military is literally an adaptation of the AR-15. The AR-15 was designed to meet the US army needs after WW2 and the Korean war.


Still, you're using military grade incorrectly.

You want to avoid military grade at all costs, since it's just a buzzword, and probably means the gun was made really shabbily.


----------



## tabzer (Jun 3, 2022)

pustal said:


> Here's USA:
> View attachment 312472
> 
> 
> ...



I guess we'll have to wait a few days to see how the media sells it.  I'm pretty certain that there is a narrative of white supremacy that's required for these stories to take off.  I'm waiting on the empirical evidence that kids were shot at the school and why.  So far the story is viral, but it might as well be fake news if there isn't a reliable source that anything happened.  I'm still not sure how Alex Jones being sued proved that Sandy Hook happened, but it's "good enough" to discourage people from saying things.


----------



## AleronIves (Jun 3, 2022)

tabzer said:


> I'm still not sure how Alex Jones being sued proved that Sandy Hook happened, but it's "good enough" to discourage people from saying things.


The survivors and their families weren't trying to "prove" that it happened. AFAIK they just wanted him to stop lying about it so that his followers would stop harassing them.


----------



## tabzer (Jun 3, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> The survivors and their families weren't trying to "prove" that it happened. AFAIK they just wanted him to stop lying about it so that his followers would stop harassing them.


That begs the question of empirical evidence that they were survivors and that they weren't lying.  AFAIK, that wasn't a prerequisite for the claim that Alex Jones was causing them a reason to fear for their lives.


----------



## pustal (Jun 3, 2022)

tabzer said:


> I guess we'll have to wait a few days to see how the media sells it.  I'm pretty certain that there is a narrative of white supremacy that's required for these stories to take off.  I'm waiting on the empirical evidence that kids were shot at the school and why.  So far the story is viral, but it might as well be fake news if there isn't a reliable source that anything happened.  I'm still not sure how Alex Jones being sued proved that Sandy Hook happened, but it's "good enough" to discourage people from saying things.


The Texas shooter was a distrubed kid that shot his own grandmother. There is no white supremacist story in the media.

The Texas story has a greater public impact because:

- children deaths;

- more deaths;

- deadlier weapon;

- younger shooter;

As for considering Alex Jones a reliable source and not the established media, there is nothing I can say to you about that, is there?


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 3, 2022)

AncientBoi said:


> They still didn't need to have brung out the guns.


To protect their property and house they've been renovating for 30 years with their own money and protect all that hard work and care from destruction? I'd say that have every right. Imagine if you took the time to build or renovate something for decades, as a passion project or love, then I come along illegally to your property and just destroy and burn it all down because of "muh protest rights" even though that line has been crossed the minute I went into someone's private residence without their permission? Maybe you're the kind of person that would be okay with that and let it go, but for me, I'd be pretty pissed.


SyphenFreht said:


> They came to harass the people after their guns were seized, and the protestors did trespass into a gated community (the idea of which is f*cking stupid. Might as well call it a gun free zone), but did they actually suffer any property damage of any kind?


There was no property damage because the punk protestors were scared off by the guns. Even if they didn't know they weren't loaded, are the protestors gonna take that chance at their life after trespassing? Without those guns, whose to say that the protestors weren't gonna destroy the place, like they did half the country in 2020? I wouldn't take that risk.


SyphenFreht said:


> I get the point that they were probably radicalized by other instances of riot based violence, but if we're to assume that every protest will result in violence, then why didn't we start mowing down the republicans that stormed the Capitol? If one protest is more than enough to warrant instant retaliation at maximum aggression, then wouldn't every protest of any kind warrant that same mentality?


Mowing them down before or after the god damn Capitol police ushered them in, and when they got in, barely any damage was done other than from a few crisis actors pretending to be conservatives so they can try to make them look bad? The capitol police killed an unarmed ex-military women for christ sake but that kind of police brutality was ok because she was white and not black. Only one unprovoked death that day, then the media tries to tie in capitol officers dying in the days after with unrelated causes with the "insurrection" in an pathetic attempt to increase the body count. It's all bullshit.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 3, 2022)

Bonus: interesting video showing that US is not the only country that has mass shootings. Shocking, I know.


----------



## tabzer (Jun 3, 2022)

pustal said:


> As for considering Alex Jones a reliable source and not the established media, there is nothing I can say to you about that, is there?



My point was that he and his affairs are not a reliable source of determination.  I know that the story is good for clickbait.  Please tell me how we can know it is real.



pustal said:


> There is no white supremacist story in the media.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 3, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> There was no property damage because the punk protestors were scared off by the guns.



I thought it was established that the protestors came back to harass them after their guns were taken away? So they came to harass them twice and did no property damage? Appalling. 



BitMasterPlus said:


> Even if they didn't know they weren't loaded, are the protestors gonna take that chance at their life after trespassing? Without those guns, whose to say that the protestors weren't gonna destroy the place, like they did half the country in 2020? I wouldn't take that risk.



I mean, isn't that what happen with Kyle Rittenhouse? Or is that ok because he's republican? 



BitMasterPlus said:


> Mowing them down before or after the god damn Capitol police ushered them in, and when they got in, barely any damage was done other than from a few crisis actors pretending to be conservatives so they can try to make them look bad? The capitol police killed an unarmed ex-military women for christ sake but that kind of police brutality was ok because she was white and not black. Only one unprovoked death that day, then the media tries to tie in capitol officers dying in the days after with unrelated causes with the "insurrection" in an pathetic attempt to increase the body count. It's all bullshit.



Crisis actors? Are ya sure you wanna go down that road? 

I'm pretty sure I saw a lot of outrage over her death. Even a simple Google search right now will pull up at least dozens of articles covering her death, with plenty of outrage to go with it.


----------



## KennyAtom (Jun 3, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> I thought it was established that the protestors came back to harass them after their guns were taken away? So they came to harass them twice and did no property damage? Appalling.


Going back to harass people is still a dick move.


SyphenFreht said:


> I mean, isn't that what happen with Kyle Rittenhouse? Or is that ok because he's republican?


Problem is, that was a textbook case of self defense. You attack man, man shoot you, you earn it because you attack man. Open and shut, the case should have never gone to trial at all and made a circus of our legal system.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 3, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> I thought it was established that the protestors came back to harass them after their guns were taken away? So they came to harass them twice and did no property damage? Appalling.


And they still had no right to do that if they did on private property. If they broke in private residence, aka your sorry ass ain't supposed to be there without permission, then don't get taken aback when you have a gun in your face from a person who has no idea if you are there to hurt them or not.


SyphenFreht said:


> I mean, isn't that what happen with Kyle Rittenhouse? Or is that ok because he's republican?


You mean when they tried to charge _him _for murder after two pedo's and a wife beater tried to kill him even though he was only there to help people in the first place so he shot those pieces of human garbage in self defense and the world's a better place because of it? The surviving guy even said he wanted to kill him and went after him with a gun when in court. So, this has nothing to do with him being a "republican" which I'm not sure if he is or isn't anyway.


SyphenFreht said:


> Crisis actors? Are ya sure you wanna go down that road?
> 
> I'm pretty sure I saw a lot of outrage over her death. Even a simple Google search right now will pull up at least dozens of articles covering her death, with plenty of outrage to go with it.


Yes, because that's what happened. And even if there was outrage, which there is, the officer was not charged in murdering her unprovoked, which is what happened. I mean, people are so eager to hold cops accountable for their actions, it seems like this is the exception.


----------



## VGSaboteur (Jun 3, 2022)

When the right to bear arms was dropped they were using muskets. I don't think that an 18 year old with a 30 round semi auto rifle was ever their idea of a well regulated militia.


----------



## tabzer (Jun 3, 2022)

VGSaboteur said:


> When the right to bear arms was dropped they were using muskets. I don't think that an 18 year old with a 30 round semi auto rifle was ever their idea of a well regulated militia.



Are you unfamiliar with the US military?  As profane as it is, it needs a countermeasure.


----------



## KennyAtom (Jun 3, 2022)

VGSaboteur said:


> When the right to bear arms was dropped they were using muskets. I don't think that an 18 year old with a 30 round semi auto rifle was ever their idea of a well regulated militia.


if we're going by the "when they wrote it they only had muskets!" argument, then no more modern tech, that was not around when they wrote the constitution!


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 3, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> Since you live in the UK, what made you feel so strongly about the US's Second Amendment? (I'm just curious.)


I’ve held this belief even long before I moved to the UK. It’d be hard to narrow things down to one specific reason, or even to boil things down to the second amendment specifically. It just happens to be the best/closest implementation of how things *should* be.


pustal said:


> The M16 used by the US military is literally an adaptation of the AR-15. The AR-15 was designed to meet the US army needs after WW2 and the Korean war.
> 
> And this is what it does:



I remember having a good giggle at the shooting range section of that 60 Minutes video, the levels of Spin Zone and scaremongering are off the charts. The misinformation just oozes out of this segment, starting from calling the AR-15 the “weapon of choice of mass shooters” (it isn’t, the most commonly used mass shooting weapons are pistols due to ease of concealment). They also take a victory lap after comparing damage from a 9mm round to damage from a .223 round - good job, you’ve discovered ballistics, .223 has four times the kinetic energy, and none of that is attributed to the rifle it’s shot out of. They also mention bump stocks, as if they convert the weapon into a fully automatic one - they don’t, and they greatly diminish accuracy due to the unusual grip required. In fact, you don’t even need a bump stock to achieve the same result. All you’re really doing is pulling the trigger faster by using the weapon’s blowback to do it - you don’t need an attachment for that. It’s just bad information all around.

As for the AR-15 being built to meet U.S. military standards, that’s just not true - the AR-15 has existed long before the U.S. adopted it as a service rifle. If we really need a history lesson on the AR-15 platform, I’m happy to oblige.

The platform has its roots in Eugene Stoner’s AR-10 design. Funnily enough, some haphazardly slapped together prototypes of the AR-10 were submitted for military trials and scored favourably, but the platform was ultimately rejected in favour of the T44, later designated the M14, due to it being based on the M1 Garand which military armories were already familiar with. It was a very short-lived service rifle that was retired before the military even fully adopted it, but I digress. In any case, after this failure the AR-10 didn’t do particularly well on the market, and as a result, ArmaLite decided to rechamber it from 7.62mm to 5.56mm, along with adding some quality of life changes. This new, smaller platform was given the designation AR-15, but ArmaLite soon sold the rights to Colt due to financial difficulties and Fairchild, its parent company, exited the firearms industry altogether. After even more modifications, most notably to the charging handle, the Colt version was designated as the Colt 601, it’s *that* rifle that was *eventually* adapted into the M16, many years after the original Stoner design was made. This process is the way modern rifle platforms are designed. The entire point is to create a system which allows the manufacturer to adjust the design for a specific use case with minimal retooling and guarantee interchangeability of (most) parts. You can make various military and civilian variants with minimal effort using the same basic design.

The U.S. Military is *very* picky - when they change a service rifle, it’s a whole shabam. They invest truckloads of money into trials and often times don’t even end up adopting any of the trialed weapons. You should see some of the goofy stuff that *didn’t* make the cut in Project SPIW, pronounced “Spew” (ha!), stuff like flachette rifles, or rifles using ammunition with multiple projectiles. Not only was the “AR-15” not supposed to be the U.S. service rifle of choice, rifles were actually ordered reluctantly, in small numbers, as a stopgap measure before the on-going SPIW research leads to the creation of the “next generation service rifle”. SPIW failed spectacularly and the rifle was adopted kind of because it was “already there”, and not without *substantial* modification compared to what Colt or ArmaLite tried to sell.

As for what made it a “military weapon” in the eyes of the Army, that can be traced back to Project SALVO. The military was operating with the belief that unit effectiveness could be increased if the shooter was capable of sending multiple projectiles down range with a single trigger pull, as opposed to going full auto and losing accuracy - that’s the origin of what we contemporarily understand as burst fire. The military versions of the rifle have that capability in the form of three-round bursts, which allows them to maximise accuracy while minimising ammunition consumption. Believe it or not, the military *doesn’t* consider covering the perimeter in lead as an effective strategy, unless we’re talking suppressive fire as means of squad support. The civilian rifles not only don’t support automatic fire, they don’t support burst fire either - they lack both of the qualities that make the M16/M4 “military” variants.

In any case, my point is that throughout this entire convoluted process the ArmaLite gas system weapons were manufactured first and adapted for military purposes later, that’s actually how it usually goes. A platform is developed for general sales and later adjusted to military needs which, as we’ve seen, aren’t always easy to meet. Making a rifle *for* the military from the start is how you end up with something like the HK-G11, the “caseless rifle that never was”. Very cool, but otherwise kind of pointless, not to mention never adopted en masse - only a couple rifles exist.





VGSaboteur said:


> When the right to bear arms was dropped they were using muskets. I don't think that an 18 year old with a 30 round semi auto rifle was ever their idea of a well regulated militia.


That’s just blatantly untrue. The founding fathers were very much aware of technological progress, many contributed to it (Ben Franklin, for instance). Repeating weapons existed in their lifetime. In fact, Joseph Belton, the inventor of the repeating flintlock rifle, offered the design to Continental Congress in 1777, a whole 14 years before the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791. The possibility of weapons that shoot projectiles one after the other being developed and more widely adopted was very real to them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belton_flintlock

Weapons like the puckle gun (1718), the girandoni rifle (1779), Kalthoff repeaters (featuring magazines of up to 60 projectiles and developed in the 1630’s) or repeating matchlock arquebuses (including revolver ones with as many as 10 projectiles in the cylinder, developed in the 1500’s) have already existed and the concept of repeating weapons wasn’t alien. The idea that they “couldn’t even imagine” them is pure fiction - they saw them with their own eyes. They were familiar with weapons that didn’t require a reload in-between shots, and they knew they were only going to get more refined with time. The reason why they weren’t used as service weapons was because they were expensive and difficult to manufacture in large quantities - weapons like that were reserved for rich civilians or elite soldiers that could afford their own custom weapon. I wasn’t kidding when I said that the public was allowed to own weapons of the same *or better* quality as military ones. The world’s militaries usually opted for what was easy to manufacture in large quantities, easy to maintain, easy to operate, reliable and cheap - weapons on the bleeding edge of technology didn’t always meet those criteria.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 3, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I’ve held this belief even long before I moved to the UK. It’d be hard to narrow things down to one specific reason, or even to boil things down to the second amendment specifically. It just happens to be the best/closest implementation of how things *should* be.


Yep, exactly how things should be in an ever-increasing psychotic society where empathy is draining by the second. But "pro-life", y'all claim to be.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 3, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Yep, exactly how things should be in an ever-increasing psychotic society where empathy is draining by the second. But "pro-life", y'all claim to be.


I don’t know what you’re trying to say here. In fact, I don’t even know what you mean by “empathy draining”. What I do know is that the rights of citizens should not be restricted on the premise that they *might* commit a crime because building law on the foundation of a crystal ball is not sensible.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 3, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I don’t know what you’re trying to say here. In fact, I don’t even know what you mean by “empathy draining”. What I do know is that the rights of citizens should not be restricted on the premise that they *might* commit a crime because building law on the foundation of a crystal ball is not sensible.


Except that, in the US, with the 2nd amendement you worship, the "might" has morphed into a "will". Where is the right of other people to not be shot in schools, hospitals or malls? Why should that be trampled by your narcissistic freudian obsession with guns?


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 3, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Except that, in the US, with the 2nd amendement you worship, the "might" has morphed into a "will". Where is the right of other people to not be shot in schools, hospitals or malls? Why should that be trampled by your narcissistic freudian obsession with guns?


Taking people’s rights away based on a hypothetical, or based on what *other* people do, is unacceptable. The gross majority of gun owners are law abiding and do not commit any crimes - they should not be penalised based on your paranoia and unjustified fear.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 3, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Taking people’s rights away based on a hypothetical, or based on what *other* people do, is unacceptable. The gross majority of gun owners are law abiding and do not commit any crimes - they should not be penalised based on your paranoia and unjustified fear.


It's not a hypothetical, nor a paranoia, when it's real. Neither it is "unjustified". Get it in your head.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 3, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> It's not a hypothetical, nor a paranoia, when it's real. Neither it is "unjustified". Get it in your head.


Of course it’s paranoia, and it’s unjustified. Mass shootings account for 0.1% of all gun-related deaths in the U.S., and AR-15’s are not the “weapon of choice” of mass shooters - handguns are, by a large margin. Everything you’re kicking off about in this thread so far isn’t reflected in the numbers. If your point (if you could call it that) is that the availability of guns leads to gun deaths, we already know that and accept that as a given. It’s not a convincing gun control argument from a 2A perspective - the right to bear arms supersedes the negative impact of illegal gun use. If panda’s graph from earlier is to be believed, the U.S. sees a little over 30 gun homicide deaths per million, yes? If it was 60, or 90 per million, I’d be saying the same thing - it seems like an acceptable risk to me. *Driving* in the U.S. leads to 12.4 deaths per hundred thousand, or 124 per million, and nobody’s hanging their keys up. We have the technology to reduce this number via self-driving, we could reduce it by opting to use public transport and give the government a monopoly on ground vehicles, we could leave the roads for exclusively commercial uses, but we don’t - the right to travel supersedes the unfortunate negative consequences.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 3, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> We have the technology to reduce this number via self-driving,


No we don.t


Foxi4 said:


> we could reduce it by opting to use public transport and give the government a monopoly on ground vehicles


Yeah, if anyone else said it I might have believed it but from you? It's obvious you're talking shite.


Foxi4 said:


> Mass shootings account for 0.1% of all gun-related deaths in the U.S., and AR-15’s are not the “weapon of choice” of mass shooters - handguns are, by a large margin. Everything you’re kicking off about in this thread so far isn’t reflected in the numbers.


Oh so these people don't matter because there's not enough dying? Is it just a matter of numbers then? If that's so, why not have universal healthcare since deaths of cardiovascular disease are so prominent? Not that I've heard you say that at all, Mr Libertarian. You're making apples and pears.


Foxi4 said:


> If your point (if you could call it that) is that the availability of guns leads to gun deaths, we already know that and accept that as a given. It’s not a convincing gun control argument from a 2A perspective - the right to bear arms supersedes the negative impact of illegal gun use.


Utter nonsense, since the only benefit to the right to bear arms is the narcissistic impulse to hold something stiff and hard in your hands, and it infringes the freedom of others to be  safe. But that doesn't matter, does it? Like every libertarian, you only care about YOUR freedom.


Foxi4 said:


> we could leave the roads for exclusively commercial uses, but we don’t - the right to travel supersedes the unfortunate negative consequences.


Another meaningless comparison since ANY movement requires the use of a road, teleporting and personal flight aren't a thing yet. Keep doing your strawmen.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 3, 2022)

[delete]


----------



## V10lator (Jun 3, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> No we don.t


^- This. The technology is young and still has many issues we need to solve but I'm all for self-driving cars only when the tech is ready for that.

The pro-gun guys are probably con cause self-driving only would mean they loose the "freedom" of driving dangerously fast and agressive.


----------



## tabzer (Jun 3, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Except that, in the US, with the 2nd amendement you worship, the "might" has morphed into a "will". Where is the right of other people to not be shot in schools, hospitals or malls? Why should that be trampled by your narcissistic freudian obsession with guns?



Your view suggests that if people can do something harmful or exploitative that they will.  You continually affirm guns as a sexual symbol that needs to be regulated or controlled.  Maybe you should be locked away for rape?


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 3, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Maybe you should be locked away for rape?


Excuse me, you slanderous imbecile?


tabzer said:


> Your view suggests that if people can do something harmful or exploitative that they will.


I'm not wrong, so?


V10lator said:


> The pro-gun guys are probably con cause self-driving only would mean they loose the "freedom" of driving dangerously fast and agressive.


Don't forget that in Murica people protested against SEATBELTS.


----------



## tabzer (Jun 3, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Excuse me, you slanderous imbecile?
> 
> I'm not wrong, so?



It's not slander.  I'm working with your logic. So if it looks stupid, you can understand why.

If you are inevitably going to rape someone, wouldn't it be reasonable to mitigate the issue before it happens by removing your capacity to do so?  Maybe you already are a rapist, but that's not the point I'm getting at.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 3, 2022)

tabzer said:


> It's not slander.


It totally is.


tabzer said:


> So if it looks stupid, you can understand why.


Yes, it's just the latest nonsense coming out of your idiotic self.


tabzer said:


> If you are inevitably going to rape someone, wouldn't it be reasonable to mitigate the issue before it happens by removing your capacity to do so?


And where does this come from? As usual, 0% logic, only riling people up. And succeeding, so, congrats?


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 3, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> No we don.t


Sure we do. In the absence of human drivers, self-driving vehicles would be perfectly capable of transporting goods nationwide. Roads dedicated 100% to commerce and operated solely by self-driving trucks are perfectly feasible, we can implement that tomorrow if we so choose. If you’re worried about AI’s driving, put a government pencil pusher in front of the “wheel” and there you go, someone to intervene if the computer makes an error. Is your right to drive more important than the safety of children? I think not. We should take civilian cars off the roads, they’re not responsible enough for driving.


Dark_Ansem said:


> Yeah, if anyone else said it I might have believed it but from you? It's obvious you're talking shite.


I don’t drive, actually. Never had the reason to - public transport takes me everywhere I need to go. I don’t hold a UK driver’s license, people here drive on the wrong side of the road.


Dark_Ansem said:


> Oh so these people don't matter because there's not enough dying? Is it just a matter of numbers then? If that's so, why not have universal healthcare since deaths of cardiovascular disease are so prominent? Not that I've heard you say that at all, Mr Libertarian. You're making apples and pears.


I said the exact opposite - that I don’t care about the number because the principle supersedes any potential loss of life from illegal use. How you reached your conclusion is anyone’s guess.


Dark_Ansem said:


> Utter nonsense, since the only benefit to the right to bear arms is the narcissistic impulse to hold something stiff and hard in your hands, and it infringes the freedom of others to be  safe. But that doesn't matter, does it? Like every libertarian, you only care about YOUR freedom.


Talk about Freudian. Is there something you’d like to share with the rest of the class? For the record, nobody has the “right to feel safe” - I’m not in control of how you feel. Your paranoia regarding what arms people legally own is not their problem - it’s yours.


Dark_Ansem said:


> Another meaningless comparison since ANY movement requires the use of a road, teleporting and personal flight aren't a thing yet. Keep doing your strawmen.


In this thread: Dark_Ansem discovers trains.


V10lator said:


> ^- This. The technology is young and still has many issues we need to solve but I'm all for self-driving cars only when the tech is ready for that.
> 
> The pro-gun guys are probably con cause self-driving only would mean they loose the "freedom" of driving dangerously fast and agressive.


Oh, I would definitely be against losing the option to drive, and I’d have the same objections as with gun control - that’s the point. It’s why I brought it up in the first place. The accidental (or even deliberate!) deaths on the road do not justify any infringement of the right to travel - we can only endeavour to make driving as safe as we can make it.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 3, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> And they still had no right to do that if they did on private property. If they broke in private residence, aka your sorry ass ain't supposed to be there without permission, then don't get taken aback when you have a gun in your face from a person who has no idea if you are there to hurt them or not.



"If". Conjecture. From the articles I've pulled up the general consensus seems to be that the protestors weren't even there on purpose, they accidentally went the wrong way and were peaceful the entire time. Can you or @KennyAtom provide any articles that state otherwise? I'm curious to see what the other perspective holds in news form. 



BitMasterPlus said:


> You mean when they tried to charge _him _for murder after two pedo's and a wife beater tried to kill him even though he was only there to help people in the first place so he shot those pieces of human garbage in self defense and the world's a better place because of it? The surviving guy even said he wanted to kill him and went after him with a gun when in court. So, this has nothing to do with him being a "republican" which I'm not sure if he is or isn't anyway.



No I was referring to how the protestors came at Kyle freely but were strangely quiet at this particular incident. 



BitMasterPlus said:


> Yes, because that's what happened. And even if there was outrage, which there is, the officer was not charged in murdering her unprovoked, which is what happened. I mean, people are so eager to hold cops accountable for their actions, it seems like this is the exception.



Are you implying that only democrats use crisis actors?


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 3, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Sure we do. In the absence of human drivers, self-driving cars would be perfectly capable of transporting goods nationwide. Roads dedicated 100% to commerce and operated by self-driving truck are perfectly feasible, tomorrow.


This technology doesn't exist. You're making a non-existent point.


Foxi4 said:


> I don’t drive, actually. Never had the reason to - public transport takes me everywhere I need to go. I don’t hold a UK driver’s license, people here drive on the wrong side of the road.


Not the point, even if I agree that driving in the UK is one of the idiotic "quirks" of the British. the point is that you're a libertarian, so the whole idea, coming from you, reeks of being entirely unbelievable.


Foxi4 said:


> I said the exact opposite - that I don’t care about the number because the principle supersedes any potential loss of life from illegal use. How you reached your conclusion is anyone’s guess.


No, you obviously mean the numbers aren't high enough, as if only mass mass murder satisfies you.


Foxi4 said:


> Talk about Freudian. Is there something you’d like to share with the rest of the class?


The sexual imagery of guns has been well documented. Your collective ignorance of existing well-established concepts is no concern of mine. But on the whole the obsession y'all display about guns matches the concept.


Foxi4 said:


> In this thread: Dark_Ansem discovers trains.


In this thread: Foxi4 discovers that trains don't go everywhere, in fact just in the UK there's plenty of places not served by train or underground. So unless you're suggesting everything is in walking distance, I recommend you think before you type.


----------



## tabzer (Jun 3, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> I'm not wrong, so?



Exactly.  It is your belief that if someone can do harm or exploit someone, that they will.  You do notice that you'd be subject to that line of thought, right?  It reads more like a confession about yourself than a truth to be told about real people.

Your presence in this thread is an argument for 2A.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 3, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Exactly. It is your belief that if someone can do harm or exploit someone, that they will. You do notice that you'd be subject to that line of thought, right? It reads more like a confession about yourself than a truth to be told about real people.


I don't own any weapons and unlike most of you pretentious pro-birthers, I have an actual conscience. Not something that is switched off when it's convenient. In fact, everything I've written puts me several kms above you in terms of both morality and coherence. If anything, I should be worried about y'all hypocrites displaying sociopathic tendencies.


tabzer said:


> Your presence in this thread is an argument for 2A.


And your presence in this thread is an argument for taking away people's right on the ground of insanity, as you're clearly a danger to society.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 3, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> This technology doesn't exist. You're making a non-existent point.


The technology exists, we’re just not allowed to use it exclusively. If you have a problem with self-driving, I added an additional concession just for you - put a government driver in front of the wheel just in case, and eliminate all civilian cars. Surely your right to drive around willy nilly isn’t more important than the lives of kids, right? Be honest - you just like the speed. You could still get around in GovCars upon request, and you could order any food or goods you need, so what’s the problem? Putting cars in civilian hands and risking them speeding in those giant steel bullets is irresponsible, we can stop it now.


Dark_Ansem said:


> Not the point, even if I agree that driving in the UK is one of the idiotic "quirks" of the British. the point is that you're a libertarian, so the whole idea, coming from you, reeks of being entirely unbelievable.


What’s unbelievable about it? That I pay a private company, like Stagecoach, or Edwards, or Nat West, or one of the other operators money to take me places? What’s weird about that?


Dark_Ansem said:


> No, you obviously mean the numbers aren't high enough, as if only mass mass murder satisfies you.


Please don’t tell me what I mean, I think I know what I mean better than you. 


Dark_Ansem said:


> The sexual imagery of guns has been well documented. Your collective ignorance of existing well-established concepts is no concern of mine. But on the whole the obsession y'all display about guns matches the concept.


Oh, I’m familiar with the concepts, having studied psychology. What I’m saying is that you’re projecting, which isn’t exactly new for you - you tend to do that. You’re trying to figure out a reason why *you* would own a weapon *if* you wanted one, and the only thing you can think of is that it would make you feel more masculine. That shows some deeply rooted insecurity - on your part, not mine. I don’t consider rifles to be penises, but you go on ahead and do you, think about penises as long and as hard as you want. 


Dark_Ansem said:


> In this thread: Foxi4 discovers that trains don't go everywhere, in fact just in the UK there's plenty of places not served by train or underground. So unless you're suggesting everything is in walking distance, I recommend you think before you type.


I’ve been in this country for nearly a decade, so I’m not “suggesting” it, I’m living it. 

You’re a riot sometimes, Dark. I gotta go to work, my bus is nearly here. It’s just more optimal, cheaper and easier than having to deal with traffic in a normal car, so that’s what I use. I’m sorry if you expected me to own a monster truck, or something else that would remind you of a penis - I don’t have those kinds of issues.


----------



## tabzer (Jun 3, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> I don't own any weapons and unlike most of you pretentious pro-birthers, I have an actual conscience. Not something that is switched off when it's convenient.



Even if you say so, your words are unreliable.  Taking you at your word would be kind of reckless considering all of the red flags you litter.



Dark_Ansem said:


> And your presence in this thread is an argument for taking away people's right on the ground of insanity, as you're clearly a danger to society.



That shows how power hungry and blind you are.  I don't have 2A, and that's still not enough for you.  I'd be interested in talking to someone on subjects that they are qualified to speak about, but your grasp and concept of danger is definitely questionable.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 3, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> The technology exists, we’re just not allowed to use it exclusively. If you have a problem with self-driving, I added an additional concession just for you - put a government driver in front of the wheel just in case, and eliminate all civilian cars. Surely your right to drive around willy nilly isn’t more important than the lives of kids, right? Be honest - you just like the speed. You could still get around in GovCars upon request, and you could order any food or goods you need, so what’s the problem? Putting cars in civilian cars and risking them speeding in those giant steel bullets is irresponsible, we can stop it now.


I don't have any issue with self-driving, except the fact that it doesn't exist for the purposes you mention. Prototypes don't count, unless you're suggesting a prototype can be mass-distributed.


Foxi4 said:


> What’s unbelievable about it? That I pay a private company, like Stagecoach, or Edwards, or Nat West, or one of the other operators money to take me places? What’s weird about that?


Actually you mentioned the goverment taking unilateral actions, which is completely unbelievable coming from you.


Foxi4 said:


> Please don’t tell me what I mean, I think I know what I mean better than you.


I think if we listed all the thing you don't know we'd end up filling two encyclopaedias, Treccani and Britannica.


Foxi4 said:


> Oh, I’m familiar with the concepts, having studied psychology. What I’m saying is that you’re projecting, which isn’t exactly new for you - you tend to do that. You’re trying to figure out a reason why *you* would own a weapon *if* you wanted one, and the only thing you can think of is that it would make you feel more masculine. That shows some deeply rooted insecurity - in your part, not mine. I don’t consider rifles to be penises, but you go on ahead and do you, think about penises as long and as hard as you want.


"please don't tell me what I mean, I think I know what I mean better than you". I have literally NEVER said ANYTHING that would remotely imply I'd own a gun, but I can read you all like a book.


Foxi4 said:


> I’ve been in this country for nearly a decade, so I’m not “suggesting” it, I’m living it.


Yeah, all wasted years, give them to a prison inmate, at least he'll get out earlier.


Foxi4 said:


> You’re a riot sometimes, Dark. I gotta go to work, my bus is nearly here. It’s just more optimal, cheaper and easier than having to deal with traffic in a normal car, so that’s what I use. I’m sorry if you expected me to own a monster truck, or something else that would remind you of a penis - I don’t have those kinds of issues.


Again, putting in my mouth words I've never said. Which is exactly why you keep being your usual disingenous bad faith moron. Projecting and having meltdowns when it's made known to you. Also, don't think I didn't notice the homophobic undertones of your idiotic nonsense. Again, convenient hiding behind the moderator status.


tabzer said:


> Even if you say so, your words are unreliable. Taking you at your word would be kind of reckless considering all of the red flags you litter.


Yeah, this from the guy who openly says he's just here to annoy others. You're embarassing. Also, red flags? The only red flag I see is you being your usual imbecilic self.


tabzer said:


> That shows how power hungry and blind you are. I don't have 2A, and that's still not enough for you. I'd be interested in talking to someone on subjects that they are qualified to speak about, but your grasp and concept of danger is definitely questionable.


And I'd be interested in talking to a HUMAN, not clearly a simian, who actually engages in bad faith, and doesn't throw around slander thinking that internet anonymity will protect you. You're disgusting.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 3, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> I don't have any issue with self-driving, except the fact that it doesn't exist for the purposes you mention. Prototypes don't count, unless you're suggesting a prototype can be mass-distributed.


I mean exactly what I said. If you don’t want to engage the hypothetical, you can just fold. The technology exists, it’s the government that doesn’t permit it for the use specified as it’s the government that creates traffic law. Self-driving vehicles could be deployed on the roads exclusively in the foreseeable future - not that it even matters, the concept is there, and we’re discussing a concept. If you’re incapable of entertaining it for the sake of an argument, that’s okay.


Dark_Ansem said:


> Actually you mentioned the goverment taking unilateral actions, which is completely unbelievable coming from you.


Then you missed the point of what you were told and you should read it again.


Dark_Ansem said:


> I think if we listed all the thing you don't know we'd end up filling two encyclopaedias, Treccani and Britannica.


Not a rebuttal, not that that’s a big surprise.


Dark_Ansem said:


> "please don't tell me what I mean, I think I know what I mean better than you". I have literally NEVER said ANYTHING that would remotely imply I'd own a gun, but I can read you all like a book.


That’s not what I said. What I said was that you’re projecting. The only reason to own a gun, in your mind, is to supplement a lacking masculinity. This inability to think of more practical reasons exposes your own insecurity, which is fine.


Dark_Ansem said:


> Yeah, all wasted years, give them to a prison inmate, at least he'll get out earlier.


I don’t even know what you mean by that, that insult is way too esoteric.


Dark_Ansem said:


> Again, putting in my mouth words I've never said. Which is exactly why you keep being your usual disingenous bad faith moron. Projecting and having meltdowns when it's made known to you. Also, don't think I didn't notice the homophobic undertones of your idiotic nonsense. Again, convenient hiding behind the moderator status.


You *just* said that’s the only reason I support civilian gun ownership, how is it a stretch to presume that this weird Freudian spin wouldn’t extend to other commonly known methods of overcompensating, like a large/fast car? It’s literally *your* argument, you made it. If you consider it moronic then oh boy, I’ve got bad news for you.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 3, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> That’s not what I said. What I said was that you’re projecting. The only reason to own a gun, in your mind, is to supplement a lacking masculinity. This inability to think of more practical reasons exposes your own insecurity, which is fine.


And I'm saying that, as usual, you're wrong.


Foxi4 said:


> I mean exactly what I said. If you don’t want to engage the hypothetical, you can just fold. The technology exists, it’s the government that doesn’t permit it for the use specified as it’s the government that creates traffic law


There would be a point in engaging with hypotethicals when dealing with an all too real issue IF we were anywhere close to distribution. It's not "the government" prohibiting anything, it's the technology that it is not safe.


Foxi4 said:


> Not a rebuttal, not that that’s a big surprise.


A rebuttal of something so idiotic would give it a dignity it doesn't deserve.


Foxi4 said:


> That’s not what I said. What I said was that you’re projecting. The only reason to own a gun, in your mind, is to supplement a lacking masculinity. This inability to think of more practical reasons exposes your own insecurity, which is fine.


Not at all what I said, "you missed the point of what you were told and you should read it again."


Foxi4 said:


> You *just* said that’s the only reason I support civilian gun ownership, how is it a stretch to presume that this weird Freudian spin wouldn’t extend to other commonly known methods of overcompensating, like a large/fast car? It’s literally *your* argument, you made it. If you consider it moronic then oh boy, I’ve got bad news for you.


Again, that's not what I said at all, especially that ridiculous point about "overcompensating" which you thought all by yourself (Freudian slip, much?) More importantly, people much smarter than you have drawn a connection between the topics and you can't rebut that, since the only contribution you made to science was when you were told to exit the maze and find the cheese at the end. The whole idea that guns make people safer is nonsense, since plenty (if not a majority) of gun owners are untrained people who could learn how to shoot from Stormtroopers. And the fact that home incidents for gun owners tend to happen often, and with lethal consequences.


----------



## Creamu (Jun 3, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Even if you say so, your words are unreliable.  Taking you at your word would be kind of reckless considering all of the red flags you litter.


I agree. What I found weird though is the denial of the palestnian genocide while not denying the holodomor. Usually they come togehter.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 3, 2022)

Creamu said:


> I agree. What I found weird though is the denial of the palestnian genocide while not denying the holodmor. Usually they come togehter.


One of them was real, the other one is an invention from you, the nutcase who thinks EHS is real and who keeps complaining about the "global banking system raising gay flags".

AMNESTY INTL report here: https://www.amnesty.org/en/location...-israel-and-occupied-palestinian-territories/

the word GENOCIDE does not appear. Not even once. And I trust them more than I trust you.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 3, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> And I'm saying that, as usual, you're wrong.


I’m not your therapist, I can only base my responses on what you say.


Dark_Ansem said:


> There would be a point in engaging with hypotethicals when dealing with an all too real issue IF we were anywhere close to distribution. It's not "the government" prohibiting anything, it's the technology that it is not safe.


I gave you the dedicated government driver concession until the technology is “safe” (which it is, for the most part). The thought experiment is about removing civilian cars altogether in the foreseeable future, and whether you’d be for that because it saves lives or against that because it limits freedom of movement. If you don’t understand the concept, I can’t help you - seems very simple to me


> A rebuttal of something so idiotic would give it a dignity it doesn't deserve.


You just don’t have one, which again, is fine.


Dark_Ansem said:


> Not at all what I said, "you missed the point of what you were told and you should read it again."


It’s exactly what you said.


Dark_Ansem said:


> Again, that's not what I said at all, especially that ridiculous point about "overcompensating" which you thought all by yourself (Freudian slip, much?) More importantly, people much smarter than you have drawn a connection between the topics and you can't rebut that, since the only contribution you made to science was when you were told to exit the maze and find the cheese at the end. The whole idea that guns make people safer is nonsense, since plenty (if not a majority) of gun owners are untrained people who could learn how to shoot from Stormtroopers. And the fact that home incidents for gun owners tend to happen often, and with lethal consequences.


I quote:


> The sexual imagery of guns has been well documented. Your collective ignorance of existing well-established concepts is no concern of mine. But on *the whole the obsession y'all display about guns matches the concept*





> Utter nonsense, since the only benefit to the right to bear arms is the *narcissistic impulse to hold something stiff and hard in your hands*, and it infringes the freedom of others to be safe. But that doesn't matter, does it? Like every libertarian, you only care about YOUR freedom.


You’re implying that the desire to own guns is sexual in nature, homoerotic, autoerotic even (narcissism angle), you’re bringing up penis imagery (stiff and hard?), which is intrinsically linked with masculinity, and the desire to supplement it by other means if it’s lacking (overcompensating). It’s well-documented. It’s literally what you’re saying. You might not understand that’s what you’re saying, but then again, you don’t understand a lot of concepts you speak about, so nobody’s surprised.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 3, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I’m not your therapist, I can only base my responses on what you say.


Thank Goodness, you'd be a totally useless, if not downright malicious, one. Besides, you're nowhere sophisticated enough to be one.


Foxi4 said:


> I gave you the dedicated government driver concession until the technology is “safe” (which it is, for the most part). The thought experiment is about removing civilian cars altogether in the foreseeable future, and whether you’d be for that because it saves lives or against that because it limits freedom of movement. If you don’t understand the concept, I can’t help you - seems very simple to me


How do you even know it is safe, you coinceited know-nothing-know-it-all? the AI required for that is probably more complex than what we can do now.


Foxi4 said:


> You just don’t have one, which again, is fine.


Yeah, I'm not the one turning every discussion I participate into dumpster fires with misinformation, downright lies and questionable opinions "oh, Trump is such an amazing businessman and is exactly what I hope america votes next time" - a seditious terrorist leader with a list of failures that even his new "business partners" could not ignore.


Foxi4 said:


> It’s exactly what you said.


No, it's not.


Foxi4 said:


> You’re implying that the desire to own guns is sexual in nature, homoerotic/autoerotic even, you’re bringing up penis imagery, which is intrinsically linked with masculinity, and the desire to supplement it by other means if it’s lacking. It’s well-documented. It’s literally what you’re saying. You might not understand that’s what you’re saying, but then again, you don’t understand a lot of concepts you speak about, so nobody’s surprised.


Ok, first of all, *I* didn't bring up anything. Research did so, and unless you have arguments disproving that research, you're only making a fool of yourself. AGAIN.
LMAO accusing me to not understand what I'm talking about, said the illiterate hypocrite who is pro-birth yet doesn't bat an eyelash when real kids, not cell clusters, are killed.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 3, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Ok, first of all, *I* didn't bring up anything. Research did so, and unless you have arguments disproving that research, you're only making a fool of yourself. AGAIN.
> LMAO accusing me to not understand what I'm talking about, said the illiterate hypocrite who is pro-birth yet doesn't bat an eyelash when real kids, not cell clusters, are killed.


Never expressed any of those sentiments, although I have argued both for and against all of those, because it’s fun. Since you’re not going to provide anything of substance or engage in any form of meaningful debate, I won’t waste any more time on this.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 3, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Never expressed any of those sentiments, although I have argued both for and against all of those, because it’s fun. Since you’re not going to provide anything of substance or engage in any form of meaningful debate, I won’t waste any more time on this.


As if your time was worth anything. Also, some memory issue here, or you "playing mysterious" like you were doing about Trump being re-elected?


----------



## Creamu (Jun 3, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> who keeps complaining about the "global banking system raising gay flags".


See what you did there is making accusations that you can't back up with quotes.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 3, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> As if your time was worth anything. Also, some memory issue here, or you "playing mysterious" like you were doing about Trump being re-elected?


I’m not going to engage in a debate with you if you refuse to answer simple questions. You’re wasting my time, I’m not interested in listening to you project more of your insecurities on others.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 3, 2022)

Creamu said:


> See what you did there is making accusations that you can't back up with quotes.


You literally said those words "global banking system" and "gay flags". Also, appreciated you dropped that nonsense once you were proven wrong by Amnesty.


Foxi4 said:


> I’m not going to engage in a debate with you if you refuse to answer simple questions. You’re wasting my time, I’m not interested in listening to you project more of your insecurities on others.


I don't recall you asking any questions, perhaps they were buried beneath that insufferable smarm (and I'm being generous calling it such, I had other words) and incoherence? In fact, the only question you asked in this page was about driving.


----------



## Creamu (Jun 3, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> You literally said those words "global banking system" and "gay flags".


Care to provide a quote?


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 3, 2022)

Creamu said:


> Care to provide a quote?


I already did several pages ago. Learn how to understand what you read, mr "EHS is real".


----------



## Creamu (Jun 3, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> I already did several pages ago. Learn how to understand what you read, mr "EHS is real".


I take that as a no.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 3, 2022)

Creamu said:


> I take that as a no.


Take it as whatever you want, it doesn't change the fact that you did. Now go spread some misinformation about EHS or the other nonsense you believe in, like your ridiculous signature displays.


----------



## Creamu (Jun 3, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Take it as whatever you want, it doesn't change the fact that you did. Now go spread some misinformation about EHS or the other nonsense you believe in, like your ridiculous signature displays.


If you promise me to watch your manners.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 3, 2022)

Creamu said:


> If you promise me to watch your manners.


Only if you promise to stop posting tinfoil hat nonsense and downright lies, like that "genocide" you somehow believe to be true but the biggest international organisation for the protection of human rights doesn't.


----------



## Creamu (Jun 3, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Only if you promise to stop posting tinfoil hat nonsense and downright lies, like that "genocide" you somehow believe to be true but the biggest international organisation for the protection of human rights doesn't.


Thats a little bit of a reach, lets stay at:


Dark_Ansem said:


> Take it as whatever you want, it doesn't change the fact that you did. Now go spread some misinformation about EHS or the other nonsense you believe in, like your ridiculous signature displays.





Creamu said:


> If you promise me to watch your manners.


and we have a deal.


----------



## leon315 (Jun 3, 2022)

Noctosphere said:


> Logic of republicans :
> There are too many guns in our country, that makes us vulnerable
> How will we deal with that?
> We will give more guns to peoples


just be glad that you don't live in the Land of "Freedom" KEKW


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 3, 2022)

Creamu said:


> Thats a little bit of a reach, lets stay at:
> 
> 
> and we have a deal.


Nope.


----------



## V10lator (Jun 3, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> The technology exists, we’re just not allowed to use it exclusively.


This is really off-topic but you're right and wrong at the same time. Yes, the technology exists but as already said there are still a lot of things to solve. Examples:

There are still cars crashing into walls cause of bugs.
Every manufacturer brews his own soup, so interoperability (exchanging data) between all the cars on the road doesn't work yet.
Moral issues haven't been solved (like should the car protect the passengers or bystanders in a dangerous situation where it's not possible to save both from harm).
All of these issues will be solved but we already know it will take a lot of time.



Foxi4 said:


> put a government driver in front of the wheel just in case


This is exactly what we do right now in other self driving areas like Trains. There are a lot of self driving trains but we still put a trained driver inside cause of such open issues. Also for trains it's more simple to have data exchange and stuff.
Now if we would put a trained driver in front of every self driving car while having a car for every person on the planet + cars transporting goods and so on... We simply wouldn't have enough drivers.


----------



## Glyptofane (Jun 3, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Only if you promise to stop posting tinfoil hat nonsense and downright lies, like that "genocide" you somehow believe to be true but the biggest international organisation for the protection of human rights doesn't.


Well, ICRC did engage in Holocaust denial at the time too.

https://www.nytimes.com/1996/12/19/us/red-cross-admits-knowing-of-the-holocaust-during-the-war.html


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 3, 2022)

Glyptofane said:


> Well, ICRC did engage in Holocaust denial at the time too.
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/1996/12/19/us/red-cross-admits-knowing-of-the-holocaust-during-the-war.html


Are you suggesting that AI is in Holocaust Denial? Got any evidence?


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 3, 2022)

V10lator said:


> *Missing the forest for the trees*


So, I’m right, and the problems are solvable. For the purposes of the argument, let’s assume that a solution is found tomorrow. We’re not arguing about driving, we’re actually talking about liberty enabling us to operate dangerous machinery or engage in dangerous activities in spite of us being empowered to stop those excess deaths. That’s the actual question posed, and since my other interlocutor won’t answer it, maybe you will. If your needs in regards to travel, including delivery of goods and services, were tended to “for the most part” (the police doesn’t let you use their range for entertainment, so let’s say travel for entertainment would be prohibited on the grounds of being dangerous and wasteful for no reason other than pleasure), would you relinquish your right to travel in return for the promise of “security”, for the sake of “the children” who die needlessly when crossing the road? That was the question asked all along, so let’s skip to that part.


----------



## V10lator (Jun 3, 2022)

Not sure if I understand your question. Many people drive because they like driving. Exchanging their cars with self-driving ones would take the liberty of having this fun from them. Still I'm all for doing this (again: When the tech is ready for it), just like I'm for taking guns from civilians.

Now you're talking about the right to travel: You can't take that right as people need to go to their jobs and stuff. Nobody needs a gun through, no matter what arguments you bring onto the table.

//EDIT: In other words: When people don't need cars / public transportation is good enough to bring anyone anywhere anytime then go for it and take all the cars away. That's a dream through.

//EDIT²: Somebody brought the ucraine as an example why having civil weapons is important but the thing is: There where no civil weapons before russia invaded. So this is actually a prime example that you get access to weapons when needed even with strict gun laws. On the other side having a gun to prepare is like killing your neighbours just because you can't be sure they are no child rapists.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 3, 2022)

V10lator said:


> Somebody brought the ucraine as an example why having civil weapons is important but the thing is: There where no civil weapons before russia invaded. So this is actually a prime example that you get access to weapons when needed even with strict gun laws. On the other side having a gun to prepare is like killing your neighbours just because you can't be sure they are no child rapists.


That's because they are in bad faith, mein freund. And they know it.


----------



## tabzer (Jun 3, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Yeah, this from the guy who openly says he's just here to annoy others. You're embarassing. Also, red flags? The only red flag I see is you being your usual imbecilic self.



Again.  These are words, in lieu of a rebuttal, from someone with zero self-awareness.  I'm not suggesting that people on the internet should believe I have a conscience just because I said so.  If you think I'm only here to annoy others you are being very small minded.



Dark_Ansem said:


> And I'd be interested in talking to a HUMAN, not clearly a simian, who actually engages in bad faith, and doesn't throw around slander thinking that internet anonymity will protect you. You're disgusting.



The irony in your post suggests you are suffering from delusions of grandeur.  Calling something "slander" doesn't make it slander.  How can someone even damage an invariably broken reputation anyway?



V10lator said:


> Nobody needs a gun through, no matter what arguments you bring onto the table.





V10lator said:


> ucraine



This is an example of someone needing guns.  To have a gun is not the same as preparing to murder someone.  It is possible that Ukraine wouldn't have been invaded in the first place if its general populace had a 2A.  They don't get guns *when* they need them.  They *might* get guns *after* they need them.  You don't want to need a gun.  In some areas of the world, it'd be wise to have one.



V10lator said:


> On the other side having a gun to prepare is like killing your neighbours just because you can't be sure they are no child rapists.



Having a gun is not the same as killing your neighbors in almost the same way that having sexual anatomy doesn't make you a rapist.

Don't worry though, that went over @Dark_Ansem's head too.  Considering how often he compared guns to penises, I thought he would have connected the dots.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 3, 2022)

V10lator said:


> Not sure if I understand your question. Many people drive because they like driving. Exchanging their cars with self-driving ones would take the liberty of having this fun from them. Still I'm all for doing this (again: When the tech is ready for it), just like I'm for taking guns from civilians.
> 
> Now you're talking about the right to travel: You can't take that right as people need to go to their jobs and stuff. Nobody needs a gun through, no matter what arguments you bring onto the table.
> 
> ...


You probably don’t, but you seem nice enough, so I’ll explain in more detail. Many people shoot because they like to - they go to the range and shoot targets, for sport and for fun. Many people drive because they like to - they like going for a nice drive every now and then, for no reason other than their own amusement, or they engage in (legal) racing for sport. From that perspective, the two are analogous - they’re theoretically “unnecessary” activities people are entitled to engage in as part of exercising their freedoms. It’s shocking to me that you would restrict their ability to do so, it’s an egregious infringement of freedom. In fact, it’s so egregious that I don’t believe you’d actually relinquish your right to go outside and drive to a destination of your choosing regardless of not having a government-approved reason to do so. It seems like a pretty fundamental right to me - it’s for the driver to decide what kind of travel is necessary and what isn’t.

You say that you can’t take people’s right to travel because they “have jobs” and need to get to them, but that’s not true, is it? The argument for the removal of guns from civilian weapons is the argument for government monopoly on weaponry, for the express purpose of reducing excess death. The police or the military aren’t going anywhere - they’re still armed, and they use said arms for government-approved purposes. On the flip side, in my example, all “approved” purposes of travel are accounted for - a GovCar will show up when needed and take you to work, bring you your shopping or get you wherever you need to be, so long as it’s not frivolous. This puts the monopoly of means of transport in the government, with the express purpose of reducing excess death. From the gun control perspective this should be perfectly acceptable because technically you still have a (government-approved) mode of transport. Both scenarios are feasible, and both infringe on inherent rights. They’re equivalent - if you’re okay with one, you must be okay with the other, are you? We’re not even touching upon legal uses of firearms as part of someone’s occupation, like for hunting or pest control on farmlands - those are de facto legitimate, but you don’t account for them like you account for “travelling to work”.

Your edit implies that you are, but consider it a futuristic dream. I have a hard time believing you, but I respect and appreciate that you actually gave me an answer instead of a bunch of off-topic nonsense. I imagine most people wouldn’t be okay with their freedom of movement being restricted, even if it meant that less people will die on the roads overal - it takes guts to go against the grain that hard. I disagree with you wholeheartedly and I hope we’ll never get there, and I don’t even drive - people’s freedom of movement is paramount, the ends don’t justify the means.

As far as the Ukraine is concerned, the crisis made lawmakers rethink the legislatislstion and new gun laws were fast tracked through to allow citizens to adequately defend themselves. An unexpected collision with reality was the impetus, which doesn’t mean that the change wasn’t good. This isn’t the first time Russia invades Ukraine, so this wasn’t a huge surprise. Better late than never, I suppose, but this is *not* an example of restrictive law allowing citizens to bear arms when needed - the opposite is true, it’s an example of a country having to push gun reform through quickly to adapt to the circumstances. The law is no longer “strict”, so it’s not the example you’re looking for.

I disagree with your notion of preparation being bad - “better to have and not need than to need and not have”. People buy insurance *in case* something unexpected happens, not because they *expect* something to happen. In fact, much like in the case of gun use, you hope nothing does happen. Being prepared, within reason, for unexpected events is a part of being a responsible adult.

Good chat overall - I got my answer. We definitely disagree, and I’m surprised by how compliant you’d be in the face of a potential infringement of a right you’ve enjoyed your whole life. I commend you for playing along instead of waffling, and I’ll happily agree to disagree - what you’re saying isn’t compatible with my values.


----------



## V10lator (Jun 3, 2022)

tabzer said:


> It is possible that Ukraine wouldn't have been invaded in the first place if its general populace had a 2A.


This is only possible if Putin is so stupid that he didn't add civilians getting armed into his calculations, even when we see the same in every single invasion in history. So is it possible? Yes, but highly unlikely.


tabzer said:


> They don't get guns *when* they need them.  They *might* get guns *after* they need them.


But we see armed civilians all through war history. So I really don't get your point here. Are there armed zombies in the ukraine or what are you even talking about?


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 3, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Again. These are words, in lieu of a rebuttal, from someone with zero self-awareness. I'm not suggesting that people on the internet should believe I have a conscience just because I said so. If you think I'm only here to annoy others you are being very small minded.


Your own words, doofus.



tabzer said:


> The irony in your post suggests you are suffering from delusions of grandeur. Calling something "slander" doesn't make it slander. How can someone even damage an invariably broken reputation anyway?


First of all, your judgement is worthless so there's nothing "invariably" about it. You're not the living tribunal or anything authoritative. Secondly, do you know what slander means?



tabzer said:


> Don't worry though, that went over @Dark_Ansem's head too. Considering how often he compared guns to penises, I thought he would have connected the dots.


Not just me making the comparison, simian. Plenty of actual researchers, which you'd know if you actually understood what you pretend to read. And what I said is actually more nuanced, but I don't expect you have the cranial capacity or sufficient synapses to understand.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 3, 2022)

Not sure how many people were aware of this, but the police department takes up 40% of Uvalde's overall budget.  Take half of that, devote it to a community law enforcement initiative where people are legally bound to actually protect and serve.  Take the other half and devote it to community mental health services in schools and hospitals.  Bam, problem solved, and this solution can be extrapolated to the rest of the country as well.  As usual, the only thing in our way is the capitalist ruling class, keeping these useless fucking pigs employed and standing around with their thumbs up their asses when it comes to the few scenarios where they're truly needed.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 3, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Not sure how many people were aware of this, but the police department takes up 40% of Uvalde's overall budget.


I made this point but it went over their heads.


----------



## V10lator (Jun 3, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> You probably don’t, but you seem nice enough, so I’ll explain in more detail. Many people shoot because they like to - they go to the range and shoot targets, for sport and for fun.


I told in this thread already: I have a so called "Schießstand" right above the corner. I can go there any time, grab a weapon and shoot for fun. Granted I still need to prove I'm not insane but that's not the point. The point is: Do I (or everyone) need my own weapon at home for this? No.
In fact shooting is deeply connected with bavarian history: We have Schießstände, Jagdclubs and all that. Still we have gun laws.


Foxi4 said:


> a GovCar will show up when needed and take you to work, bring you your shopping or get you wherever you need to be


We don't have enough Taxis and so on for this. This is what I meaned with it's a dream. Again: When public transport would be good enough I would be all for removing civil cars. Same with weapons. Now please don't tell me it's not the polices job to risk their lives for others cause here in german it is. Why else do they need vests or even guns in the first place?


Foxi4 said:


> I disagree with your notion of preparation being bad - “better to have and not need than to need and not have”.


Do you know the definition of terror?


> 1. Intense, overpowering fear. synonym: fear.
> 2. One that instills intense fear.
> 3. The ability to instill intense fear.


So you preparing means terrorists won already. Is this the world you want to live in?


----------



## Noctosphere (Jun 3, 2022)

leon315 said:


> just be glad that you don't live in the Land of "Freedom" KEKW


Real Land of Freedom is Canada

We accept MUCH more diversity of all kind that usa
They claimed that title only because everybody is allowed to carry guns


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 3, 2022)

Noctosphere said:


> Real Land of Freedom is Canada
> 
> We accept MUCH more diversity of all kind that usa
> They claimed that title only because everybody is allowed to carry guns


A Canadian i knew told me Canada still has a big racism issue against non-whites.


----------



## Noctosphere (Jun 3, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> A Canadian i knew told me Canada still has a big racism issue against non-whites.


I never said we didn't
I simply sayit's much much worse in usa than in canada


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 3, 2022)

V10lator said:


> I told in this thread already: I have a so called "Schießstand" right above the corner. I can go there any time, grab a weapon and shoot for fun. Granted I still need to prove I'm not insane but that's not the point. The point is: Do I (or everyone) need my own weapon at home for this? No.
> In fact shooting is deeply connected with bavarian history: We have Schießstände, Jagdclubs and all that. Still we have gun laws.
> 
> We don't have enough Taxis and so on for this. This is what I meaned with it's a dream. Again: When public transport would be good enough I would be all for removing civil cars. Same with weapons. Now please don't tell me it's not the polices job to risk their lives for others cause here in german it is. Why else do they need vests or even guns in the first place?
> ...


I’m not afraid of terrorists and being prepared for the unexpected is not equivalent to fear. Naively thinking that everything will always go swimmingly in life is silly - you buy house insurance because you *might* need it, you buy car insurance because you *might* get in an accident, you write a last will and testament because you *might* unexpectedly die. Those are not motivated by fear, but by the notion of preparedness. You can leave things to luck - I know that luck exists on the intersection of preparation and opportunity.


----------



## tabzer (Jun 3, 2022)

V10lator said:


> This is only possible if Putin is so stupid that he didn't add civilians getting armed into his calculations, even when we see the same in every single invasion in history. So is it possible? Yes, but highly unlikely.
> 
> But we see armed civilians all through war history. So I really don't get your point here. Are there armed zombies in the ukraine or what are you even talking about?



What are you talking about?  My point was that Ukraine needed guns and did not have them when they needed them.  Also, having a gun is not the same as killing someone.  I get that you flipped from entertaining being mass shooter to the other side of the spectrum, where everything in the universe is the peace that you put out, but I don't think leaning too far to either side of the spectrum is balanced.




Dark_Ansem said:


> Your own words, doofus.



Oh.  This again.  New tactic.  No, that's "slander".



Dark_Ansem said:


> First of all, your judgement is worthless so there's nothing "invariably" about it. Secondly, do you know what slander means?



I do.  Question is, do you?  Libel would be the applicable word if there was something defamatory about what I said (wrote).  It seems you are talking from every angle that you can imagine, hoping that something you say might be misunderstood as correct.




Dark_Ansem said:


> Not just me making the comparison, simian. Plenty of actual researchers, which you'd know if you actually understood what you pretend to read. And what I said is actually more nuanced, but I don't expect you have the cranial capacity or sufficient synapses to understand.



Lol, your numerous references to "actual research" isn't as nuanced as you might think.


----------



## Dr_Faustus (Jun 3, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> guns will never go away, what's the point of arguing about it?


I do not think the goal here is to get rid of guns (at least lets be reasonable here, its never going to go away) Its about control and ensuring those who do own firearms are responsible and well, sane.

I feel the concept of absolutes are insanely flawed in society. Nothing is ever really absolute, except for death I suppose. The problem stems from the fact that certain groups and entities are hard against any form of control as the mere idea of introducing more control and restrictions means they will lose their immediate freedoms to own firearms entirely, or assume it becomes some sort of slippery slope/domino effect.

Its never been about repealing the second amendment, nor taking people's guns away. Its about making sure those who do have access and use of guns are mentally sound and not going to go flying off the handle with a firearm in a public place because they stopped serving breakfast at 10:30 in the morning.


tabzer said:


> Are you unfamiliar with the US military?  As profane as it is, it needs a countermeasure.


I'll once again point out that at this point the US military is far equipped to handle any inland situation no matter the severity of it. The only reason why it has not happened is because no one in the government has been that batshit to attempt to do so. Well, for the most part anyways.

The concept of defending yourself against a turncoat government is long, long past the point of being viable. Anyone that thinks otherwise severely underestimates the raw power the military has at our expense. The reason why we all still have the ability to own firearms is because of the original amendments being held in high regard in both government and in public, aside from that firearms are for sport, collecting, and in rare cases self defense. Anything outside of this is just lunacy and proof as to why we need tighter restrictions with gun control.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 3, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Oh. This again. New tactic. No, that's "slander"


No, it's fact checking, doofus.



tabzer said:


> I do. Question is, do you? Libel would be the applicable word if there was something defamatory about what I said (wrote). It seems you are talking from every angle that you can imagine, hoping that something you say might be misunderstood as correct.


I don't need to rely on misunderstanding to be correct. Unlike yourself.



tabzer said:


> Lol, your numerous references to "actual research" isn't as nuanced as you might think.


Not even basic language skills and you're here thinking you can talk about issues bigger than you. And yes, it's actual research. I appreciate that to you, a guy whose only noteworthy written work is having written his phone number on petrol station doors, it may not look like a big deal. But it is.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 3, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I’m not afraid of terrorists and being prepared for the unexpected is not equivalent to fear. Naively thinking that everything will always go swimmingly in life is silly - you buy house insurance because you *might* need it, you buy car insurance because you *might* get in an accident, you write a last will and testament because you *might* unexpectedly die. Those are not motivated by fear, but by the notion of preparedness. You can leave things to luck - I know that luck exists on the intersection of preparation and opportunity.


I can understand and relate to both sides of the argument to some extent.  After all, I'm American.  Guns are just everywhere here, I see plenty of people open carrying in public.  So yeah I own a couple, mostly for target/skeet shooting and also for home defense as a last resort against the unexpected, as you put it.  At the same time, would I prefer to live in a country where _nobody_ had guns? Definitely. One or two mass shootings a year compared to the US' hundreds. I wouldn't have to feel guilty about growing numb to it.


----------



## leon315 (Jun 3, 2022)

Noctosphere said:


> Real Land of Freedom is Canada
> 
> We accept MUCH more diversity of all kind that usa
> They claimed that title only because everybody is allowed to carry guns


Damn right brother!


----------



## tabzer (Jun 3, 2022)

Dr_Faustus said:


> I'll once again point out that at this point the US military is far equipped to handle any inland situation no matter the severity of it. The only reason why it has not happened is because no one in the government has been that batshit to attempt to do so. Well, for the most part anyways.
> 
> The concept of defending yourself against a turncoat government is long, long past the point of being viable. Anyone that thinks otherwise severely underestimates the raw power the military has at our expense. The reason why we all still have the ability to own firearms is because of the original amendments being held in high regard in both government and in public, aside from that firearms are for sport, collecting, and in rare cases self defense. Anything outside of this is just lunacy and proof as to why we need tighter restrictions with gun control.



That reads a little nihilistic.  Even if by appearance, a tyrannical US cannot be overthrown, there is still leverage in the 2A.  In the case of real open rebellion, military could splinter or turn against whatever is perceived as the corruption.



Dark_Ansem said:


> Not even basic language skills and you're here thinking you can talk about issues bigger than you. And yes, it's actual research. I appreciate that to you, a guy whose only noteworthy written work is having written his phone number on petrol station doors, it may not look like a big deal. But it is.



Nice cope.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 3, 2022)

Xzi said:


> I can understand and relate to both sides of the argument to some extent.  After all, I'm American.  Guns are just everywhere here, I see plenty of people open carrying in public.  So yeah I own a couple, mostly for target/skeet shooting and also for home defense as a last resort against the unexpected, as you put it.  At the same time, would I prefer to live in a country where _nobody_ had guns? Definitely. One or two mass shootings a year compared to the US' hundreds. I wouldn't have to feel guilty about growing numb to it.


Nice! What are you packing? Please tell me it’s not a Hi Point. You can PM me.


----------



## JuanBaNaNa (Jun 3, 2022)

Noctosphere said:


> Real Land of Freedom is Canada
> 
> We accept MUCH more diversity of all kind that usa
> They claimed that title only because everybody is allowed to carry guns


I thought it was because they "set nations free" in exchange of Oil


----------



## Xzi (Jun 3, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Nice! What are you packing? Please tell me it’s not a Hi Point. You can PM me.


A Para 1911 .45 and a Benelli shotgun.  Thinking eventually I'll probably sell the .45 and get a 38 Super, as well as maybe a rifle.  Good price to performance ratio is always my jam.  In computing, vehicles, and all purchases in general.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 3, 2022)

Xzi said:


> A Para 1911 .45 and a Benelli shotgun.  Thinking eventually I'll probably sell the .45 and get a 38 Super, as well as maybe a rifle.  Good price to performance ratio is always my jam.  In computing, vehicles, and all purchases in general.


1911 is a classic, as are Benellis. Good taste.


----------



## tabzer (Jun 3, 2022)

In light of the discussion it's not hard to imagine someone owning a Hi Point while arguing that it is stupid to own a gun.


----------



## Dr_Faustus (Jun 3, 2022)

tabzer said:


> That reads a little nihilistic.  Even if by appearance, a tyrannical US cannot be overthrown, there is still leverage in the 2A.  In the case of real open rebellion, military could splinter or turn against whatever is perceived as the corruption.


Even in an extreme case the expectations of the military splintering off from itself or its command is a very unlikely scenario unless the people in said military realize they are attacking someone or something that is relatable to them. Even so the upper ranks and branches of military kinda train out the humanity in people as time goes on. Ever see a Marine or task force ops? They get shit done no questions asked. You as the command point in a direction and say get the job done, they either get the job done or they don't come back alive. 

Even if you put that aside, we still have drone operations as well which can easily snuff out any situation without even getting your own hands covered in another person's blood. We have achieved a status of operation for having some of the most efficient and deadly tools of war on this planet, a matter of unrest or crowd control inland is a minor concern to the US government and if it was somehow necessary to, it can be resolved by force just as fast. The only thing that stops this is a checks and balances system that makes up our government and of course general public opinion. Basically if neither of these were an issue then we would have seen examples of this in true form over the last couple of years sure enough. 


Also if you want to look at an example of the power and carlessness of the government is in general just look at the seize on Waco. You might take a few out with you but at the end of it all you're still going to get steamrolled by them.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 3, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> 1911 is a classic. Good taste.


It was a younger me, but I still don't mind the look and feel of it.  The manufacturer, maybe not so great.  A little too much on the budget brand side.



tabzer said:


> In light of the discussion it's not hard to imagine someone owning a Hi Point while arguing that it is stupid to own a gun.


Only liberals would argue that it's stupid to own a gun in America, because the vast majority of them don't.  Most leftists recognize and understand the necessity of owning at least one, however.  That doesn't mean many of us wouldn't prefer a more utopian society where nobody feels pressured into buying firearms.  If moving to say, New Zealand, was as easy and cheap as buying a gun, I would've been gone yesterday.


----------



## tabzer (Jun 3, 2022)

Dr_Faustus said:


> Even in an extreme case the expectations of the military splintering off from itself or its command is a very unlikely scenario unless the people in said military realize they are attacking someone or something that is relatable to them.



I don't disagree with what you are saying.  I disagree with it as being a reason to disregard the 2A.  An organic revolution could seep into every branch of politics, and it may be the 2A that catalyzes such a movement.



Xzi said:


> Only liberals would argue that it's stupid to own a gun in America, because the vast majority of them don't. Most leftists recognize and understand the necessity of owning at least one, however. That doesn't mean many of us wouldn't prefer a more utopian society where nobody feels pressured into buying firearms. If moving to say, New Zealand, was as easy and cheap as buying a gun, I would've been gone yesterday.



The scenario I was imagining was someone living in a country where their Hi Point is illegal to own and/or they are embarrassed by the size of it.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 3, 2022)

Xzi said:


> It was a younger me, but I still don't mind the look and feel of it.  The manufacturer, maybe not so great.  A little too much on the budget brand side.


There are certainly more “optimal” picks in the realm of price to performance, but very few that are “cooler” in the price bracket. Comfort is a thing too - shooting a brick-shaped gun is never nice.


----------



## pustal (Jun 3, 2022)

Xzi said:


> I can understand and relate to both sides of the argument to some extent.  After all, I'm American.  Guns are just everywhere here, I see plenty of people open carrying in public.  So yeah I own a couple, mostly for target/skeet shooting and also for home defense as a last resort against the unexpected, as you put it.  At the same time, would I prefer to live in a country where _nobody_ had guns? Definitely. One or two mass shootings a year compared to the US' hundreds. I wouldn't have to feel guilty about growing numb to it.


Thing is you can have an armed population & have safety checks and balances in place.

You can have a gun or a gun collection here, albeit restricted to reasonable weapons to have. To have a gun however, you need a permit that entails: basic training and safety training, medical and psych evaluation and no criminal record.

If you do buy a gun you need to register it and same for ammo.

The result is most people don't buy guns because they don't feel the need to. If you'd like though and are fit for it, there is really no impediment, as was the case with my dad and his beloved collection.

Also a result, rare shooting cases (usually old farts that go senile and have pre-2nd Republic weapons under the mattress that shoot policemen's - usually the only casualties are themselves), negligible gang violence (if you traffic guns they are usually very quickly busted), no school shootings and low civilian and law enforcement gun deaths (the numbers are mostly suicides).


----------



## Noctosphere (Jun 3, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> There are certainly more “optimal” picks in the realm of price to performance, but very few that are “cooler” in the price bracket. Comfort is a thing too - shooting a brick-shaped gun is never nice.


Hi foxi,
I see you are active in this forum
Is there a rule in the terms that prohibit peoples from spreading misinformation here?
I mean in NO way that having an opposite opinion should be against the rules, but spreading misinformations on purpose should be.
Is it already prohibited on this forum or not?


----------



## Dr_Faustus (Jun 3, 2022)

tabzer said:


> I don't disagree with what you are saying.  I disagree with it as being a reason to disregard the 2A.  An organic revolution could seep into every branch of politics, and it may be the 2A that catalyzes such a movement.



I am not trying to disregard the second amendment either. All I am trying to say is the original intent for it should not be the sole or primary reason to own firearms anymore and in the intent of doing so it could come off as being a bit mentally unstable in that you are letting fear of a potential scenario drive your purchase and ownership of a firearm. 

Its one thing that if you own one because you want to hunt wildlife, or that you want to go skeet shooting or on a fire range, or hell you want to collect them because they are cool and have a history to them. That said if your sole reason to own one is to use it for intended harm on another person, intentionally it comes off as being suspect. Its one thing if I used my firearm for game hunting and suddenly someone tries to break into my house and I use it for self defense. My intent was never to use it primarily for self defense, but if its there in reach of self defense (just like a good ol' baseball bat that my father used to keep in the back of his car when I was a kid) then yeah, its going to be used in that kind of matter if necessary. 

However if your reasoning to purchase and own a firearm is solely in the mindset that you think you need to defend yourself from any chaotic scenario that might happen around you, that is going to again, come off very suspect of mental instability and should themselves be considered a threat given that at that point it becomes less if it happens and more what is the scenario of events that would trigger a response in that person to find themselves needing to pull out a firearm and start going wild? Its a scale that varies from person to person and as a result someone who thinks the world is going to go to hell because of a red dawn scenario happening in their back yard or because you don't like Mondays neither should represent a reasonable action to warrant an ownership of a firearm. A firearm should only ever be used in self defense when absolutely necessary, and should not at all be the only reason to want to own one. That is the big difference between people who own firearms and those so overly paranoid about the world closing in on them that they need to start shooting around them to keep it from engulfing them.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 3, 2022)

Noctosphere said:


> Hi foxi,
> I see you are active in this forum
> Is there a rule in the terms that prohibit peoples from spreading misinformation here?
> I mean in NO way that having an opposite opinion should be against the rules, but spreading misinformations on purpose should be.
> Is it already prohibited on this forum or not?


Define misinformation. Do you mean something that is contentious or something that is untrue and meant to confuse or disorient readers in pursuit of some kind of political agenda? We allow the former, we prohibit the latter - there are adequate sticky threads in the main subforum describing what is and is not allowed beyond standard TOS.


----------



## tabzer (Jun 3, 2022)

Dr_Faustus said:


> and should not at all be the only reason to want to own one.



The labelling of people whose primary reason to own a firearm for protection as mentally unstable and therefore a threat is something I disagree with fully.  There are areas in the world where crime is a known quantity and having your life threatened is a real possibility.



Dr_Faustus said:


> I am not trying to disregard the second amendment either. All I am trying to say is the original intent for it should not be the sole or primary reason to own firearms anymore and in the intent of doing so it could come off as being a bit mentally unstable in that you are letting fear of a potential scenario drive your purchase and ownership of a firearm.



I guess you are welcome to your opinion that anyone who thinks the government needs to have leverage against it is a nut-case.  Maybe you are just not pulling your weight.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 3, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Nice cope.


Whistle when you actually do something noteworthy in your life, useless ignoramus.


----------



## Creamu (Jun 3, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Whistle when you actually do something noteworthy in your life, useless ignoramus.


Maybe you would be more persuasive with more kindness.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 3, 2022)

Creamu said:


> Maybe you would be more persuasive with more kindness.


Well then maybe people shouldn't insult, in rather heavy ways I'd like to add, first.


----------



## Creamu (Jun 3, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Well then maybe people shouldn't insult, in rather heavy ways I'd like to add, first.


Sometimes you've just got to roll with the punches.


----------



## tabzer (Jun 3, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Whistle when you actually do something noteworthy in your life, useless ignoramus.


Are you entitled to such information?   You aren't my friend.  Don't be a creep.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 3, 2022)

tabzer said:


> You aren't my friend.


Not used being friend with sociopaths, so definitely something we agree on. Even less so with incoherent ignoramuses.


tabzer said:


> Don't be a creep.


Nice cope. I'd take you seriously if you weren't the one throwing rape accusations left and right, which is definitely creepy and not normal behaviour.


----------



## Creamu (Jun 3, 2022)

If we all had guns and would talk like this in IRL, humankind would evolve to be a more well mannered species. That's why I am against gun control.


----------



## tabzer (Jun 3, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Not used being friend with sociopaths, so definitely something we agree on. Even less so with incoherent ignoramuses.
> 
> Nice cope. I'd take you seriously if you weren't the one throwing rape accusations left and right, which is definitely creepy and not normal behaviour.



I didn't accuse you of rape.  You are free to read what I said again, with the knowledge that isn't what I was doing.


----------



## Creamu (Jun 3, 2022)

tabzer said:


> I didn't accuse you of rape.  You are free to read what I said again, with the knowledge that isn't what I was doing.


Did you accuse him of rape by deception though?
https://gbatemp.net/threads/virigin...ut-he-was-a-man-acquitted.613183/post-9843491


----------



## tabzer (Jun 3, 2022)

Creamu said:


> Did you accuse him of rape by deception though?
> https://gbatemp.net/threads/virigin...ut-he-was-a-man-acquitted.613183/post-9843491



It is a possibility that we were just deceiving ourselves.


----------



## Glyptofane (Jun 3, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Are you suggesting that AI is in Holocaust Denial? Got any evidence?


No, Red Cross is the self proclaimed largest humanitarian network, so I thought that's what you meant. 

AI has done some good work related to the plight inflicted by the Western backed Zionist military occupation, but have also been developing more credibility issues as they shift focus to woke jibberish such as white privelege, BLM, and gun control. Of course they can't be trusted to perform an honest investigation into the matter considering their stance on these manufactured and inherently dishonest issues.


----------



## Creamu (Jun 3, 2022)

tabzer said:


> It is a possibility that we were just deceiving ourselves.


It is save to assume that we are involved in a great amount of selfdeception, yes.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 3, 2022)

Glyptofane said:


> woke jibberish such as white privelege, BLM, and gun control. Of course they can't be trusted to perform an honest investigation into the matter considering their stance on these manufactured and inherently dishonest issues.


What exactly is the "jibberish" you're talking about?

Are you denying white privilege exists?
Are you denying that black lives matter?
Are you denying that gun control needs to exist?
And at any rate I was talking about AI, not the REd Cross. Who do you believe exactly is qualified to investigate such issues? Fox News? Breitbart?


----------



## tabzer (Jun 3, 2022)

Creamu said:


> It is save to assume that we are involved in a great amount of selfdeception, yes.



I think so.  For example, @Dark_Ansem made the argument that we should restrict people from having guns based on the premise that people with a gun *will* commit a crime.



tabzer said:


> Your view suggests that if people can do something harmful or exploitative that they will. You continually affirm guns as a sexual symbol that needs to be regulated or controlled. Maybe you should be locked away for rape?



The point being conveyed here is that it didn't matter if he committed rape or not, but that it should be treated as it were an inevitability, per his own logic.  Maybe he would prefer castration as a control method, I didn't ask.

Whether or not he is a rapist is entirely contingent to his claim.  I even clarified that I wasn't calling him a rapist, yet he persisted that "if people can do something harmful or exploitative that they will". 
 Regardless, he chose to play the victim as an especially pathetic way to go.  Gives him license to say the shittiest things he can think of (which aren't clever), mostly mimicry.  Sad, hurt, I don't know.  He's probably still in denial about getting publicly roasted by Foxi4

I think many people are involved in a great amount of @Dark_Ansem's self-deception.

Of course I deceive myself thinking that I can reach him on any level form of communication.  He found a way to perceive me as under him, in the name of tolerance, so that's not going to happen.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 3, 2022)

tabzer said:


> I think so. For example, @Dark_Ansem made the argument that we should restrict people from having guns based on the premise that people with a gun *will* commit a crime.


No, that's something YOU said.


tabzer said:


> I even clarified that I wasn't calling him a rapist.
> Regardless, he chose to play the victim as an especially pathetic way to go. Gives him license to say the shittiest things he can think of (which aren't clever), mostly mimicry. Sad, hurt, I don't know. He's probably still in denial about getting publicly roasted by Foxi4


Nice imaginary cope about stuff that never happened. But appreciated how humble you are, in highlighing your inability to even roast marshmallow over a fire.


tabzer said:


> Of course I deceive myself thinking that I can reach him on any level form of communication. Of course he found a way to perceive me as under him, so that's not going to happen.


I don't *perceive* you as under me. I know you are beneath me, like all trolls are. Even more so those who admit it. Especially so when they're pro-birth incoherent hypocrites tossing around slanderous accusations.


----------



## Creamu (Jun 3, 2022)

tabzer said:


> I think so.  For example, @Dark_Ansem made the argument that we should restrict people from having guns based on the premise that people with a gun *will* commit a crime.


Yes, and we should also cut off our sexual organs, because we will commit rape (by deception).


----------



## Noctosphere (Jun 3, 2022)

Pro life? Well i do am pro life, i don't likewhen someone dies...


----------



## tabzer (Jun 3, 2022)

Some people mistake arguments as beliefs.  Especially when they can't comprehend hypotheticals or the word "if". 
 They stop making rebuttals and resort to judging people because it is easier for their fragile self-esteem.  I don't know if it is a tragedy that those people become the "trolls" they so despise, or if it is a form of comedic justice.  My position is that I am against persuading people to have abortions, btw.  It's a little more nuanced than "pro-birther" but I think people can spot a nihilist.


----------



## Creamu (Jun 3, 2022)

Noctosphere said:


> Pro life? Well i do am pro life, i don't likewhen someone dies...


How do you crush your enemies then?


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 3, 2022)

Oh look, another one: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/gunman-outside-iowa-church-fatally-shot-2-women-police-say


----------



## Noctosphere (Jun 3, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Oh look, another one: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/gunman-outside-iowa-church-fatally-shot-2-women-police-say


According to the news i heard literally today, it's not a shooting since there are less than 4 victims (wounded or dead) according to usa's laws


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 3, 2022)

Noctosphere said:


> According to the news i heard literally today, it's not a shooting since there are less than 4 victims (wounded or dead) according to usa's laws


Ahh, semantics


----------



## tabzer (Jun 3, 2022)

Spoiler



This is a work of fiction. Names, characters, business, events and incidents are the products of the author's imagination. Any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, or actual events is purely coincidental.



*US Military Moves to Disarm*

In a move of solidarity against unnecessary gun violence in America, the entire US military has sent all of their firearms and artillery to Ukraine.

"We simply do not need the weapons right now," commented Lt. Dan, "Why not send them to someone who needs them for necessary gun violence?"

Col. Mustard concurred in his statement: "We have decided to take on a policy to put our guns where they are needed most.  Idle hands are the devil's workshop after all, and idle arms, doubly so."

The Biden Administration is taking measures to revise the nation's positions as a world leader of perpetuating violence.  The plan is to rotate the possession of arms to the nation, or nations, that is determined to need them the most.  It will be a faith-based system where the weapons are given to a different nations as conflict is subdued.

"Hopefully, every nation will have a chance to use our weapons," said Mr. Green.

While this seems to be a progressive reform in America's stance towards firearms, there are still some questions.  How will the nations that needs the weapons be determined?  When asked, the White House responded:

"While we are still in discussion on logistics but the idea is that we'll have a panel of a diverse group of experts to determine consensus of what nations get what, and how to progress warfare technologies.  As of now, we have Lockheed Martin and Raytheon enlisted.  We are hoping for more diversity, but that is a great start."

When asked about 2nd Amendment concerns, Rep. Jed Booze said, "When it comes to the 2nd Amendment, we aren't backing down.  We are hoping that the citizens will follow our example, and give their guns away to people who can use them."

There seems to be an unusual harmony between both Democratic and Republican parties on this issue.  Is this an indication of future cooperation between the only two parties that matter?  Time will tell.


----------



## AleronIves (Jun 3, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> would you relinquish your right to travel in return for the promise of “security”, for the sake of “the children” who die needlessly when crossing the road? That was the question asked all along, so let’s skip to that part.





Foxi4 said:


> Many people shoot because they like to - they go to the range and shoot targets, for sport and for fun. Many people drive because they like to - they like going for a nice drive every now and then, for no reason other than their own amusement, or they engage in (legal) racing for sport. From that perspective, the two are analogous - they’re theoretically “unnecessary” activities people are entitled to engage in as part of exercising their freedoms. It’s shocking to me that you would restrict their ability to do so, it’s an egregious infringement of freedom. In fact, it’s so egregious that I don’t believe you’d actually relinquish your right to go outside and drive to a destination of your choosing regardless of not having a government-approved reason to do so. It seems like a pretty fundamental right to me - it’s for the driver to decide what kind of travel is necessary and what isn’t.


I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding here. Nobody in the US has the right to drive. Being able to drive is a privilege contingent upon your ability to a) prove that you understand the rules of the road by passing a written test, and b) prove that you know how to safely operate a vehicle by passing a driving test. If you fail either of these measures, the government can take away your ability to drive a car by revoking your driver's license. If being able to drive were a right, the DMV would get sued for violating your rights, and everybody would be allowed to drive without passing any tests. We would subsequently have more car crashes by allowing unqualified people on the road. There are plenty of poor drivers on the road as it is, but surely it would be worse if the government had zero checks on who was allowed to operate a motor vehicle.

Is this an infringement of liberty? Yes. Do people accept this curtailment of liberty? Yes. Why? They have judged that the benefits of weeding out the craziest drivers outweigh the infringement of liberty caused by denying some people the ability to drive.

This isn't what happens with guns in the US, because having guns is a right protected by the Second Amendment. Every time somebody proposes a reasonable restriction on gun ownership, such as being required to pass a background check to buy a gun, the restriction is challenged and overturned in the courts based on an infringement of people's Second Amendment rights.

Your analogy is flawed, as you're conflating rights with the means of expressing those rights. Having the right to travel is not the same as having the right to drive. If the government takes away your driver's license, you can still take public transit, ride a bike, or walk. If the government takes away your gun, you can still stab a home invader with a knife or club him over the head with a steel pipe. The difference is that in the US, driving is not a right, whereas at some level, gun ownership is.

Eliminating the right to own guns is not the same thing as banning all guns. People don't have a right to drive, and yet most sane people are able to pass the tests required to get a driver's license. Putting similar restrictions on gun ownership is not the same thing as depriving people of the right to self defense. If gun ownership were a privilege instead of a right, all those law-abiding gun owners would be able to pass the tests to keep the privilege of owning guns, as they already know how to handle a gun safely.

The purpose of gun control is to keep the crazy people from getting guns. Does this require an infringement of liberty on the part of law-abiding gun owners? Yes. They'll have to spend extra time and money passing the tests required to own a gun. Is the infringement of liberty worth the benefits in terms of public safety? Every industrialised nation except the US seems to say yes.


----------



## tabzer (Jun 3, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding here. Nobody in the US has the right to drive. Being able to drive is a privilege contingent upon your ability to a) prove that you understand the rules of the road by passing a written test, and b) prove that you know how to safely operate a vehicle by passing a driving test. If you fail either of these measures, the government can take away your ability to drive a car by revoking your driver's license. If being able to drive were a right, the DMV would get sued for violating your rights, and everybody would be allowed to drive without passing any tests. We would subsequently have more car crashes by allowing unqualified people on the road. There are plenty of poor drivers on the road as it is, but surely it would be worse if the government had zero checks on who was allowed to operate a motor vehicle.
> 
> Is this an infringement of liberty? Yes. Do people accept this curtailment of liberty? Yes. Why? They have judged that the benefits of weeding out the craziest drivers outweigh the infringement of liberty caused by denying some people the ability to drive.
> 
> ...


There is no perfect analogy, but the analogy did serve the purpose that it was intended for.  It resulted in an amicable disagreement of views to which your points weren't even a factor.  Moving on...  You say that the purpose of gun control is to keep the crazy people from getting guns, then how does magazine capacity restrictions and restriction to legal weapon types support that claim?


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 3, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding here. Nobody in the US has the right to drive. Being able to drive is a privilege contingent upon your ability to a) prove that you understand the rules of the road by passing a written test, and b) prove that you know how to safely operate a vehicle by passing a driving test. If you fail either of these measures, the government can take away your ability to drive a car by revoking your driver's license. If being able to drive were a right, the DMV would get sued for violating your rights, and everybody would be allowed to drive without passing any tests. We would subsequently have more car crashes by allowing unqualified people on the road. There are plenty of poor drivers on the road as it is, but surely it would be worse if the government had zero checks on who was allowed to operate a motor vehicle.
> 
> Is this an infringement of liberty? Yes. Do people accept this curtailment of liberty? Yes. Why? They have judged that the benefits of weeding out the craziest drivers outweigh the infringement of liberty caused by denying some people the ability to drive.
> 
> ...


If we replace driving specifically with any other means of travelling unsupervised the analogy doesn’t really change and the results are exactly the same, but fair point, I suppose. Obviously it’s not perfectly applicable 1 to 1, no analogy is, I was demonstrating a principle. In the absence of any prior wrong-doing any citizen with a driver’s license is entitled to drive, we do not restrict their ability to do so based on the premise that they *might* offend - we only restrict it if they *do* offend.


----------



## tabzer (Jun 3, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> If we replace driving specifically with any other means of travelling unsupervised the analogy doesn’t really change and the results are exactly the same, but fair point, I suppose. Obviously it’s not perfectly applicable 1 to 1, no analogy is, I was demonstrating a principle. In the absence of any prior wrong-doing any citizen with a driver’s license is entitled to drive, we do not restrict their ability to do so based on the premise that they *might* offend - we only restrict it if they *do* offend.


Sorry.  It seems like I am defending you but I thought there were obvious points that anybody could address.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 3, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Sorry.  It seems like I am defending you but I thought there were obvious points that anybody could address.


I mean, he’s not wrong - the “right to drive” isn’t constitutionally protected, it’s just that this was hardly the point of the analogy. The default mode of travel nowadays is in some kind of motor vehicle, so I used it as a shorthand for all movement. I see the objection as valid, if a bit pedantic - I was quite specific when describing why I used this specific example. It doesn’t really “work” outside of the context of the government limiting (not completely removing) means of exercising a right. Banning a specific type of weapon functions as banning a specific mode of travel in the analogy. You still have a right to bear arms, or the right to travel, but it’s been infringed upon.


----------



## seany1990 (Jun 3, 2022)

When you lift up your hands in prayer, I will not look. Though you offer many prayers, I will not listen. For your hands are covered with the blood of innocent victims

Isaiah 1:15


----------



## AleronIves (Jun 3, 2022)

tabzer said:


> You say that the purpose of gun control is to keep the crazy people from getting guns, then how does magazine capacity restrictions and restriction to legal weapon types support that claim?


I should probably have been more clear on that point, but my post was already getting long. I think that the purpose of gun control should be to keep crazy people from getting guns, just as the purpose of restricting the ability to drive is to prevent crazy people from getting on the road. In this context, "crazy" means "anyone incapable of safely operating the device". I can't comment on what other people think the purpose of gun control should be.

As far as magazine capacity restrictions are concerned, I think the important point is that the guns should be fit for purpose. If we assume the reason people need guns is for self defense and for hunting, the guns civlians are allowed to have should be able to carry that out with the level of force necessary to accomplish the task. Unlike Foxi, I don't think civilians should necessarily be allowed access to the same types of weapons as the military. I don't think access to, say, machine guns will help you hunt deer or stop a home invasion more effectively than a rifle or a handgun, so the burden of proof lies with you to demonstrate why you need a gun with a high-capacity magazine when less deadly options are already sufficient.



Foxi4 said:


> In the absence of any prior wrong-doing any citizen with a driver’s license is entitled to drive, we do not restrict their ability to do so based on the premise that they *might* offend - we only restrict it if they *do* offend.


Yes, but we restrict their ability to gain access to driving in the first place by requiring them to earn a license, and we periodically force them to prove their continued worthiness by making driver's licenses expire every few years. This ensures that a) you remain familiar with the rules of the road, including any new rules that were changed since the last time you took the test, and b) you remain physically fit to continue to operate a vehicle.

You are correct that as long as you don't commit any crimes with your car, you are allowed to continue to operate it until your license expires. This seems like a reasonable model for ensuring responsible gun ownership. As I said before, it is an inconvenience and reduction of freedom for existing gun owners, but they're also the ones who would most easily be able to pass the certification process, as they already know how to safely handle firearms. The goal in getting people to prove their competence is to prevent people like these 18 year old mass shooters (and people prone to domestic violence) from getting guns they clearly are not responsible enough to own.



Foxi4 said:


> I mean, he’s not wrong - the “right to drive” isn’t constitutionally protected, it’s just that this was hardly the point of the analogy.


I thought your analogy would serve to illustrate a point I wanted to make, regardless of why you were originally making that analogy. I hope that wasn't overly presumptuous.


----------



## tabzer (Jun 3, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> I don't think access to, say, machine guns will help you hunt deer or stop a home invasion more effectively than a rifle or a handgun, so the burden of proof lies with you to demonstrate why you need a gun with a high-capacity magazine when less deadly options are already sufficient.



I think that the ability to keep your government in check is the missing link here.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 3, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> I thought your analogy would serve to illustrate a point I wanted to make, regardless of why you were originally making that analogy. I hope that wasn't overly presumptuous.


It isn’t, I like being challenged, as long as the challenge is logical. Here’s my point of view on why the analogy applies. We can both agree that the right to bear arms, as well as the right to travel, both exist. Contemporarily they’re treated as open concepts - semi-automatic rifles are one of many kinds of “arms” one can possess, but one doesn’t necessarily have a “right” to own each and every kind of arm. Now, I personally think that “shall not be infringed” means “shall not be infringed”, but that’s not how federal law works - certain weapons require additional licensing and registration, others are outright banned, and then there are circumstances which override the right to bear arms either permanently or temporarily. Similarly, we have a right to travel, and driving is one of many modes travel can take place. Driving carries an additional requirement of a license, much like a machine gun would in America. One has the sane right to apply for a license as anybody else as we are all equal under the law - that doesn’t translate to necessarily getting one, driving has a proficiency requirement. The tl;dr is that both are specific manifestation of rights rather than rights themselves. Does that clarify some things?


----------



## Hanafuda (Jun 3, 2022)

Let's see Hunter Biden prosecuted to the full extent of the law for his federal firearms crimes, then we can talk about new laws. What's the point of making new laws when they won't equally enforce the ones already in effect?


----------



## KennyAtom (Jun 4, 2022)

once they take away guns, it'll get worse.

Canada took away guns, and they stole the protesters money along with arresting them just for protesting.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 4, 2022)

An interesting tidbit - the U.S. Military has finally concluded the Next Generation Squad Weapon program which aimed at replacing the M4 carbine, the M249 SAW light machine gun and the M240 machine gun with one uniform platform. In a huge surprise to everyone they actually chose a successor platform to the M4 - the SIG MCX Spear, now officially known as the M5. The military also chose a new standard calibre of ammunition, the .277 Fury, in anticipation of encountering body armor resistant to 5.56mm on the battlefield. There are civilian version of the rifle available directly from Sig Sauer, of course.



This is a *huge* deal, it’s not the first time there was an attempt to replace the M16/M4 (member the SCAR program? I member). Who would’ve thunk, an end of an era. 58 years - that’s a long, long chunk of time in service. Of course M4’s and M16’s won’t be instantly retired, but the MCX platform will gradually take over.


----------



## AleronIves (Jun 4, 2022)

tabzer said:


> I think that the ability to keep your government in check is the missing link here.


We already have a peaceful method of accomplishing that. It's called an election. If you get to the point where the people need to stop the government by force, not only does that mean the people have squandered multiple elections by not electing different leaders who would not have brought the country to the brink of civil war, but it means the country no longer exists, because the people are preparing to overthrow the government. At that point, nobody has any rights, because there is no longer a constitution or a nation. It's every man for himself, and whoever wins the war will determine what the governing principles of the new nation are.



Foxi4 said:


> We can both agree that the right to bear arms, as well as the right to travel, both exist.


It depends on what you mean by "exist". If you mean that the state has set forth rules limiting how much the government can obstruct your ability to do those things, then yes. If you mean that those rights are absolute, then I would disagree. As I said before, there is no such thing as "rights"; rights are a mental construct designed to facilitate the cooperation between large groups of people by creating a baseline for which things people should be allowed to do and which things the government should not be allowed to do. This baseline is the product of the minds of the people who founded the nation and not the product of any kind of higher power. The framers knew the Constitution wasn't perfect, which was why they added a mechanism for changing it through amendments.

I am arguing that, as seems to be the case in many European countries, there should not be a right to bear arms. It should be a privilege contingent on your ability to prove that you can own and operate those arms safely. Just as we don't have a right to drive because there are other means of travel, we don't need a right to bear arms when there are other means of self defense. If the Constitution prevents this, then it should be changed. Unlike some gun control advocates, I am not suggesting that guns should be completely eliminated and that nobody should be allowed to have them. As I understand it, this isn't the case in Europe, either. You don't see people advocating for the abolition of all cars in order to stop everybody from dying in traffic accidents, but we do have reasonable restrictions on cars to minimise the risk of unworthy people being on the roads. As far as I'm concerned, a similar level of restrictions on firearms is a reasonable compromise between "people should be able to have the same weapons as the military" and "nobody should be allowed to have guns". If the Second Amendment forbids this, then it should be repealed.

I know as a self-identified "Second Amendment absolutist" that you would never agree to this; I'm just stating my proposed solution to the problem for other people to consider.



Foxi4 said:


> I personally think that “shall not be infringed” means “shall not be infringed”, but that’s not how federal law works - certain weapons require additional licensing and registration, others are outright banned, and then there are circumstances which override the right to bear arms either permanently or temporarily.


I agree that you can make such a case based on a literal interpretation of the text. The question is whether a literal interpretation is actually going to make the nation better or not. If the Second Amendment means that people have the right to own machine guns and tanks and that federal law restricting such ownership is unconstitutional, then I would say that the Second Amendment is insane and must be repealed, because there is no way civilians have a legitimate need for such weaponry.

If, on the other hand, the Second Amendment means that people's right to self defense through reasonable measures shall not be infringed, then perhaps my position can be reconciled with the Second Amendment. The problem is the official government interpretation of the Constitution changes depending upon which party controls the Supreme Court, which delegitimises the entire system, as we've discussed in the abortion thread.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 4, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> I agree that you can make such a case based on a literal interpretation of the text. The question is whether a literal interpretation is actually going to make the nation better or not. If the Second Amendment means that people have the right to own machine guns and tanks and that federal law restricting such ownership is unconstitutional, then I would say that the Second Amendment is insane and must be repealed, because there is no way civilians have a legitimate need for such weaponry.
> 
> If, on the other hand, the Second Amendment means that people's right to self defense through reasonable measures shall not be infringed, then perhaps my position can be reconciled with the Second Amendment. The problem is the official government interpretation of the Constitution changes depending upon which party controls the Supreme Court, which delegitimises the entire system, as we've discussed in the abortion thread.


Oh, there’s no doubt about that part - gun control is unconstitutional from a textualist perspective. We know what the founders meant when they wrote the 2A, and we know what reality they lived in. There was no shortage of private owners of cannons, gatling guns and other assorted weaponry that would make most people today sweat profusely. In fact, most times private owners had more advanced weaponry that the state did, by the virtue of being able to afford singular units of whatever was cutting edge at the time. This matter was never brought before the Supreme Court because everybody has an unwritten, unspoken understanding that the resulting shitstorm wouldn’t benefit anyone. As far as I’m concerned, no citizen should suffer penalties and their exercise of rights should not be restricted without proper cause. “Shall not be infringed” is very clear, and as per the text, necessary to the security of a free state. If I cannot own my own M1 Abrams tank, I am not truly free.


----------



## AleronIves (Jun 4, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> “Shall not be infringed” is very clear, and as per the text, necessary to the security of a free state. If I cannot own my own M1 Abrams tank, I am not truly free.


Does this mean that your position on European gun laws is that they are tyranny, and people accept them because people like a certain amount of tyranny, because tyranny brings security, and total liberty is too scary for most people to handle?


----------



## KennyAtom (Jun 4, 2022)

seany1990 said:


> When you lift up your hands in prayer, I will not look. Though you offer many prayers, I will not listen. For your hands are covered with the blood of innocent victims
> 
> Isaiah 1:15


bible taken out of context.

they probably meant if you actually killed them, not if you owned something that could kill.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 4, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> Does this mean that your position on European gun laws is that they are tyranny, and people accept them because people like a certain amount of tyranny, because tyranny brings security, and total liberty is too scary for most people to handle?


It depends on whether you accept the idea that there are circumstances in which a given population might long for tyranny out of fear. I certainly think that the government is sticking its nose where it doesn’t belong, but I would never advertise my views as “popular”. This kind of estimation is always difficult because it’s hard to measure whether you’re dealing with tyranny that is lesser, greater or middling. I do know that there’s a wide range of things I can’t do with no justification given, logical or otherwise. I generally don’t like being treated as guilty of something before I even get to do the “fun part”.


----------



## AleronIves (Jun 4, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> It depends on whether you accept the idea that there are circumstances in which a given population might long for tyranny out of fear.


My point was that you said:



Foxi4 said:


> “Shall not be infringed” is very clear, and as per the text, necessary to the security of a free state.


This means that one of these three statements must be true:


Europeans do not live in free and secure states, and they are subject to some level of tyranny, because they don't have an unlimited right to keep and bear arms.
The framers were wrong, and an unlimited right to keep and bear arms is not actually necessary for the security of a free state.
The framers did not intend to say that the right to keep and bear arms is unlimited.
Option 3 seems to be clearly wrong, which leaves only options 1 and 2. Which one is correct in your view? It sounds like you believe option 1 to be true.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 4, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> My point was that you said:
> 
> 
> This means that one of these three statements must be true:
> ...


Personally? Option 1, of course. I have many gripes with the Old World approach towards managing the state. European societies grew complacent and sacrificed much of their liberty on the altar of centralised authority. Whenever people ask me about which party I support, I like to say that “most freedom-loving Brits boarded boats some time in the 17th century, sailed across the ocean and founded the greatest country on Earth” and as such I support none as none represent me. It’s obviously humorous, but fundamentally it’s not wrong.

I think the “safety first”, “greater good” method of governance is incorrect, not because of the founders said so (although they were correct), but because I value the individual over the collective. If the system sacrifices the rights of the individual for the convenience of the collective, the system is authoritarian by definition and serves no one. The collective is just a bunch of individuals, after all. If you cater to the individual, you cater to the specific needs of everyone in the collective. If you cater to the collective, you ignore the individual needs of each member. Prosperity isn’t born out of safety - it’s born out of risk. Modern governance is interested primarily in risk mitigation, and as such, it drowns in mediocrity. It’s a pretty complex subject, gun rights are just one facet of the conversation. We could talk about this until the cows come home and not even scratch the surface.

My general point is that *if* rights are restricted, there better be a good reason for it, and hypotheticals or what-if’s are not good reasons. It’s also worth noting that everyone lives under “some level of tyranny”, the question is how much you’re willing to accept before it breaks the camel’s back. “Unlimited” is an admittedly extreme position - I would probably be fairly content before getting to that point, as most pro-gun advocates would. The ideal is something you strive for, not necessarily reach. In other words, “you keep removing restrictions and I’ll tell you when to stop” is the ideal way to measure this.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 4, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> bible taken out of context.
> 
> they probably meant if you actually killed them, not if you owned something that could kill.



I think the point of the reference is to highlight how pretty much everyone involved, on both(multiple) sides of the issue, continue arguing about semantics and intents rather than actually doing something to help prevent tragedies. If I'm interpreting the OP's post correctly, it's actually very fitting in regards to the debate at hand.


----------



## AleronIves (Jun 4, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Personally? Option 1, of course.


Thanks for replying.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 4, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> Thanks for replying.


For the record, don’t mistake my general dislike of the government, or honest belief that everyone has the right to arm themselves, with fedposting or any particular desire to “fix the issue”. I think that, for the time being, that ship has sailed.


----------



## AleronIves (Jun 4, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I think that, for the time being, that ship has sailed.


Do you mean that the problem of gun violence is unsolvable? I generally agree with you that most gun control is probably unconstitutional, and my solution is to change the Constitution. What's yours?

Are you going to be the one to tell the grieving families, "Sorry, there is no way to stop mass shooters without infringing on the constitutional right to bear arms, and that right is more important than the lives of your children"? Is there any way to stop mass shootings in your eyes that doesn't infringe on the right to keep and bear arms?

The usual answer I hear is "something something mental health", but we all know that isn't going to happen, either. The government would have to pay for that, and Republicans hate the idea of that almost as much as they hate the idea of restricting guns. The conservative principle of personal responsibility doesn't apply to mentally ill people who are incapable of caring for themselves, so either you have to use tax dollars to care for them, or you have to leave them on the street and hope they don't do anything crazy, which is just waiting for bad things to happen.


----------



## KennyAtom (Jun 4, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> The government would have to pay for that, and Republicans hate the idea of that almost as much as they hate the idea of restricting guns.


Funny you mention that, considering gun control will also cost money the government would have to pay for.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 4, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> Funny you mention that, considering gun control will also cost money the government would have to pay for.


Funding mental health programs, case studies, rehabilitation programs, counseling, anything that could be considered helpful in fostering an environment where anyone could have a gun and there were little to no worries of imminent gun related deaths would also require government money and probably higher taxes in some areas, most likely through gun sales and permits themselves. Is this an idea you would endorse considering it compromises both parties' concerns?


----------



## tabzer (Jun 4, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> We already have a peaceful method of accomplishing that. It's called an election.



You can vote out of tyranny?  I don't think so.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 4, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> Do you mean that the problem of gun violence is unsolvable? I generally agree with you that most gun control is probably unconstitutional, and my solution is to change the Constitution. What's yours?
> 
> Are you going to be the one to tell the grieving families, "Sorry, there is no way to stop mass shooters without infringing on the constitutional right to bear arms, and that right is more important than the lives of your children"? Is there any way to stop mass shootings in your eyes that doesn't infringe on the right to keep and bear arms?
> 
> The usual answer I hear is "something something mental health", but we all know that isn't going to happen, either. The government would have to pay for that, and Republicans hate the idea of that almost as much as they hate the idea of restricting guns. The conservative principle of personal responsibility doesn't apply to mentally ill people who are incapable of caring for themselves, so either you have to use tax dollars to care for them, or you have to leave them on the street and hope they don't do anything crazy, which is just waiting for bad things to happen.


Oh, I was talking about gun rights in the rest of the world, not mass shootings - you can’t solve mass shootings without egregiously infringing upon freedom. You could ban guns and avoid them for the most part, in the same way as you could ban civilian cars and eliminate the gross majority of traffic fatalities - since those propositions are not acceptable to Americans, they’ll have to make due with other solutions that reduce harm, things like increased security measures and so on.


----------



## AleronIves (Jun 4, 2022)

tabzer said:


> You can vote out of tyranny?  I don't think so.


I can't tell if you're being facetious. No, you avoid tyranny by not voting it *into* office in the first place.



Foxi4 said:


> Oh, I was talking about gun rights in the rest of the world, not mass shootings - you can’t solve mass shootings without egregiously infringing upon freedom.


Ah, my misunderstanding. Your solution is that mass shootings shouldn't be solved, because the status quo (freedom) is more important. At least you're willing to admit it, unlike the Republicans, who try to hand wave the problem away with "thoughts and prayers" and the like.


----------



## tabzer (Jun 4, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> I can't tell if you're being facetious. No, you avoid tyranny by not voting it *into* office in the first place.



Then why does the 2A exist?


----------



## AleronIves (Jun 4, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Then why does the 2A exist?


That's just it. I'm saying it shouldn't.


----------



## tabzer (Jun 4, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> That's just it. I'm saying it shouldn't.



Is that what they are teaching in school now?


----------



## AleronIves (Jun 4, 2022)

I wouldn't know. It sounds like you skipped over my discussion with @Foxi4.


----------



## tabzer (Jun 4, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> I wouldn't know. It sounds like you skipped over my discussion with @Foxi4.



You think the 2A, literally, is insane, and it's apparently there for no good reason.

I'm wondering how you got to that conclusion.  What did you learn about the 2A in school?


----------



## tabzer (Jun 4, 2022)

If the US Government indoctrinates its kids into a system of ignorance and helplessness, it seems that the 2A is being turned against the citizens by the government.  If the would be mass shooters, educated about the purpose of the 2A, 
targeted people in control of policy, you'd have the politicians clamoring for gun control in unison, met with a lot more resistance by the voters.

Seems like gun free zones and poor demoralizing education systems is a necessary step in the method for politicians to hide behind kids and to also use them as political currency.

The US government gains more leverage as it infringes on 2A.  The best way to infringe on the 2A is if the citizens ask for it.  So, having kids die in school shootings becomes an interest of the government--which is why it wasn't only allowed to happen, but it was "contained" for the whole duration of it.


----------



## AleronIves (Jun 4, 2022)

tabzer said:


> You think the 2A, literally, is insane, and it's apparently there for no good reason.
> 
> I'm wondering how you got to that conclusion.  What did you learn about the 2A in school?


I said a specific interpretation of it would make it insane. Not everybody interprets it that way. What you learn about the amendments in school is irrelevant, since such complex issues are simplified for the sake of a child's understanding.

I don't find the idea that the right to keep and bear arms is a check against government tyranny compelling. As I said before, the government has tanks, missles, drones, nukes and an array of poisons at its disposal. If it wants you dead, you're going to die, and no cache of weapons in your basement is going to save you. Massive strides in humans' ability to kill each other have been made since the SA was written.

Now, Foxi has suggested (perhaps at times in jest) that the solution to this imbalance of power is to allow civilians to have access to the same weaponry as the government in order to level the playing field. I don't think that allowing civilians to have machine guns, tanks, missles, nukes, and chemical weapons is going to help, though. Instead of using them as a check on government power, they'll use the weapons to terrorise each other, just as they use guns for that purpose now. If we can't trust people to make responsible decisions with cars without restricting who can use them, the idea that people should have unrestricted access to weapons of war is madness.

There are essentially two choices: you can use the American model, where the right to keep and bear arms is paramount, and mass shootings/suicides/domestic violence are an acceptable loss in order to preserve that right, or you can use the European model, where the right to keep and bear arms is restricted - but not eliminated - in order to improve public safety. The rest of the world has decided that the European model is a better way to live than the American model, and I agree. The problem is that we can't embrace the European model in the US, because the SA prohibits it; therefore, I think the SA should be repealed.

The downside of the American model is that there will be gun violence from the prevalence of gun ownership. The downside of the European model is that if you vote enough tyrannical politicians into power, you may have no means of overthrowing that oppressive government if the people don't have enough guns handy. My response to this is that if the people are stupid enough to vote tyrants into office, they deserve what they get. Having a check against this possibility is not worth the weekly bloodshed in the streets caused by the American model.


----------



## tabzer (Jun 4, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> I said a specific interpretation of it would make it insane. Not everybody interprets it that way



Literally.



AleronIves said:


> What you learn about the amendments in school is irrelevant, since such complex issues are simplified for the sake of a child's understanding.



Learning about the implications and the weight of the 2A is not irrelevant to the person who is in the position to exercise it.  I'm curious what you learned about the 2A in school.  Nothing memorable?



AleronIves said:


> My response to this is that if the people are stupid enough to vote tyrants into office, they deserve what they get.



And their stupid kids too?


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 4, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> Ah, my misunderstanding. Your solution is that mass shootings shouldn't be solved, because the status quo (freedom) is more important. At least you're willing to admit it, unlike the Republicans, who try to hand wave the problem away with "thoughts and prayers" and the like.


Shouldn’t? No - can’t, to a large extent. Only reduced. I don’t think anyone claims otherwise.


----------



## tabzer (Jun 4, 2022)

A positive feedback loop can be stopped if disconnected.  Disconnect education from political control, then you'd see a massive reduction in school shootings.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 4, 2022)

tabzer said:


> A positive feedback loop can be stopped if disconnected.  Disconnect education from political control, then you'd see a massive reduction in school shootings.


The heck does this even mean?  Selectively choose which parts of history to teach and which not to?  Our schools already do that.  The two easiest things to access in America are hate porn like you see on Faux News, and guns.  That's very much by design, so it won't be changing any time soon.


----------



## tabzer (Jun 4, 2022)

Xzi said:


> The heck does this even mean?  Selectively choose which parts of history to teach and which not to?  Our schools already do that.  The two easiest things to access in America are hate porn like you see on Faux News, and guns.  That's very much by design, so it won't be changing any time soon.


Alternatives to public education are available and have %100 less school shootings (figure of speech).  If you want to do a split, and learn via experience about public education, just avoid attending during the dates where there is a publicized plan to shoot up the school (unless you want the best education has to offer on that).

I was originally suggesting the removal of government incentivizing/funding relationships which compromises the education in the direction of state/official interest (like inhibiting awareness of the intent of 2A to people of the age, or general education about how the US government can be, and is sometimes seen as, "the bad guy").  It is a very demoralizing experience when you are told that what you are feeling is invalid and your government is right.  Where compliance is assumed, and any sign of dissent is met with disdain.  It's a recipe for nihilism in developing children.

Basic terms;  America is programming kids to become school shooters via its educational processes.  I don't buy the "mental issues" argument, because society should be well versed enough to know they exist and how to deal with them.  Those details are more pertinent than the American position in the cold war.

Also, it's fine that you hate faux news, but CNN should never get a pass by omission.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 4, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Alternatives to public education are available and have %100 less school shootings.


Not true, there have been about ten mass shootings in private schools in the last decade, despite the armies of people paid to protect them.  It's also not a realistic alternative for the vast majority of the US who live paycheck to paycheck.



tabzer said:


> I was originally suggesting the removal of government incentivizing/funding relationships which compromises the education in the direction of state/official interest.


The worst thing public schools do is tell lies of omission, but they are legally required to adhere to certain standards of openness in education, meaning the information is always there in the school library for those curious enough to go looking.  Many of the same people funding and sending their kids to private schools are the ones who insist on censorship and attend book burnings.



tabzer said:


> Also, it's fine that you hate faux news, but CNN should never get a pass by omission.


CNN doesn't pull in even half the viewers of Fox, and almost none of the viewers it does have watch around the clock.  It was also recently bought out by a Trump-supporting billionaire, so I'd expect their on-air etiquette to become more Fox-like soon.  Gotta keep Americans' anger focused on each other so it isn't focused on the ruling class who are robbing us blind daily.


----------



## tabzer (Jun 4, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Not true, there have been about ten mass shootings in private schools in the last decade, despite the armies of people paid to protect them. It's also not a realistic alternative for the vast majority of the US who live paycheck to paycheck.



I'll chalk this up to you missing the point.  If living paycheck to paycheck is an excuse to not do right by your kids, then you live in an unsustainable community and school shootings should probably be the least of your concerns.  Homeschooling efforts can be community driven and shared, reducing costs and keeping interactions with people that you trust.  If you are interested in a better schooling environment than what is provided by the state, then you should take at least a little initiative.



Xzi said:


> The worst thing public schools do is tell lies of omission, but they are legally required to adhere to certain standards of openness in education, meaning the information is always there in the school library for those curious enough to go looking. Many of the same people funding and sending their kids to private schools are the ones who insist on censorship and attend book burnings.



The first statement is plainly false.  Anyone who attended a public school knows that isn't true in practice.  That's an ideal.  

"But the information is in the library".  Have you even experienced childhood?

Equating people who don't approve of public education as book burners is such a you thing.  I'm glad I'm not you.




Xzi said:


> CNN doesn't pull in even half the viewers of Fox, and almost none of the viewers it does have watch around the clock



CNN is a trash heap of the left as faux news is of the right.  Is it good that CNN isn't popular?  Or is it just a fact to you, and you are aiming at the bigger fish?


----------



## XDel (Jun 4, 2022)

Children should carry guns to school, or in the case of Texas, Chainsaws!


----------



## Xzi (Jun 4, 2022)

tabzer said:


> If living paycheck to paycheck is an excuse to not do right by your kids, then you live in an unsustainable community and school shootings should probably be the least of your concerns.


Lol that's roughly 70% of Americans, though I'd agree shit is unsustainable almost country-wide.  It's why we now have a recession every decade, middle class is pretty much dead.



tabzer said:


> "But the information is in the library". Have you even experienced childhood?


I'm talking more high school years, but yes I was a child once, I'm not a robot lmao.



tabzer said:


> Equating people who don't approve of public education as book burners is such a you thing. I'm glad I'm not you.


That's not what I said, and I'll not be apologizing for what I did say.



tabzer said:


> CNN is a trash heap of the left as faux news is of the right. Is it good that CNN isn't popular? Or is it just a fact to you, and you are aiming at the bigger fish?


I'd agree that CNN is a trash heap, but precisely because they are _neoliberal_ and not at all _leftist_. What they report and how they report it is all about making money, same as Faux News. They just weren't as good at that fake bullshit as Murdoch is.


----------



## tabzer (Jun 4, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Lol that's roughly 70% of Americans, though I'd agree shit is unsustainable almost country-wide. It's why we now have a recession every decade, middle class is pretty much dead.



I concur.  That is a dominant issue.  Addressing that can have beneficial results in every aspect of the country.



Xzi said:


> I'm talking more high school years, but yes I was a child once, I'm not a robot lmao.



Disillusioned teenagers aren't visiting the school library.



Xzi said:


> That's not what I said, and I'll not be apologizing for what I did say.



The only literary function that had was to stigmatize alternatives, propping the state's solution.  You said so through insinuation. 



Xzi said:


> I'd agree that CNN is a trash heap, but precisely because they are _neoliberal_ and not at all _leftist_. What they report and how they report it is all about making money, same as Faux News. They just weren't as good at that fake bullshit as Murdoch is.



I mean I generally agree, but I don't see the point in splitting hairs if you are going to favor one side over the other.



The take away I get, if you want "good" state provided education, school shootings are apart of the curriculum.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 4, 2022)

tabzer said:


> I concur. That is a dominant issue. Addressing that can have beneficial results in every aspect of the country.


I mean, at this point you might as well be telling us to eat the rich (literally or figuratively), but I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea.  



tabzer said:


> Disillusioned teenagers aren't visiting the school library.


I did.  Not often admittedly, but still.



tabzer said:


> The only literary function that had was to stigmatize alternatives, propping the state's solution. You said so through insinuation.


What I insinuated is that both sides of the coin are fucked, education across the board is broken in this country if terrorists get to dictate that choice to parents.  Corporations don't need to own any more of our education system than they already do.


----------



## tabzer (Jun 4, 2022)

Xzi said:


> I mean, at this point you might as well be telling us to eat the rich (literally or figuratively), but I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea.



I won't stop you.  But if I am rich, I'll conceal it the best I can. 



Xzi said:


> I did. Not often admittedly, but still.



I meant to append the "figure of speech", because I knew you'd be the exception.




Xzi said:


> What I insinuated is that both sides of the coin are fucked, education across the board is broken in this country if terrorists get to dictate that choice to parents. Corporations don't need to own any more of our education system than they already do.



This reads a lot differently than what you said.  What do you mean by "if terrorists get to dictate" and "corporations don't need to own any more of our education system"?  American politics is intrinsically tied to terrorism.  Shouldn't their lack of involvement in our children's upbringing spare them?  Also, how come it seems like you are suggesting that the alternative to public education is google?


----------



## Xzi (Jun 4, 2022)

tabzer said:


> I won't stop you. But if I am rich, I'll conceal it the best I can.


Oh they don't hide it, they just live in gated mega-mansion communities with plenty of on-site security.



tabzer said:


> This reads a lot differently than what you said. What do you mean by "if terrorists get to dictate" and "corporations don't need to own any more of our education system"? American politics is intrinsically tied to terrorism. Shouldn't their lack of involvement in our children's upbringing spare them? Also, how come it seems like you are suggesting that the alternative to public education is google?


Private schools are corporations unto themselves and/or owned by corporations, I didn't think that needed further explanation.  Fair enough being nitpicky about the word "terrorism," inciting a political outcome is not necessarily the goal of every mass shooter.  What I meant is that there always needs to be an inexpensive alternative available, even if some states' handling of education is worse than others, and even if there are too many guns readily available to high schoolers.  Because the alternative is a lot of kids simply not getting an education at all.


----------



## smf (Jun 4, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Of course the ideal solution would be to train every gun owner, but that brings us back to how and when we can do it.


Except you then train all the "good" and bad guys with a gun, so the bad guys know what the "good" guys are trained to do and can figure out ways to mitigate against it.

Arming everyone without background checks is the worst idea ever.

So we're left with ever bigger locks on doors, which the shooter was able to utilize as it meant that nobody could escape or get in to stop him.


----------



## smf (Jun 4, 2022)

tabzer said:


> You think the 2A, literally, is insane, and it's apparently there for no good reason.



Second amendment may have made sense in 1791, though that is still open for debate. It is literally insane nowadays.

The reason being is that it's much easier for people to control you than it was back then.

All they have to do is blame gates, faucci etc and the weak minded will just obey.

You have to wonder why they do the same with maintaining gun ownership.....


----------



## tabzer (Jun 4, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Private schools are corporations unto themselves and/or owned by corporations, I didn't think that needed further explanation. Fair enough being nitpicky about the word "terrorism," inciting a political outcome is not necessarily the goal of every mass shooter. What I meant is that there always needs to be an inexpensive alternative available, even if some states' handling of education is worse than others, and even if there are too many guns readily available to high schoolers. Because the alternative is a lot of kids simply not getting an education at all



As much as you may hate the existence of them, the alternative to public education is not an automatic "corporations are winning" (homeschooling and community driven efforts for example).  Even if a choice of a corporation was the alternative, America is already a huge financially irresponsible corporation.  Wouldn't you think that choosing an alternative would yield better value and further decentralize the market?  It is a net positive outcome where the default is to just do nothing and hyper-monopolize your shitty status quo.

TBF, "terrorism" is usually a biproduct of political involvement.  Terrorists are created.  They don't exist for no reason.  "Mental illness" sometimes being tied to "terrorism" is also often used as a big cop out to ignore people being disenfranchised from effectively participating in society.  Society has "outgrown" that "those people", and that is society's mistake.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 4, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Even if a choice of a corporation was the alternative, America is already a huge financially irresponsible corporation, so wouldn't you think that choosing an alternative would yield better value and further decentralize the market? It is a net positive outcome where the alternative is not changing anything.


Like eight corporations control nearly everything in America, how would giving more control to them "decentralize the market?"



tabzer said:


> TBF, "terrorism" is usually a biproduct of political involvement. Terrorists are created. They don't exist for no reason. "Mental illness" being tied to "terrorism" is also often used as a big cop out to ignore people disenfranchised from effectively participating in society. Society has "outgrown" that type of person, and that is society's mistake.


Well if your diagnosis of the problem is that we're too politically involved as Americans, you're way off base.  Plenty of other countries have much less voter apathy and have next to no mass shootings annually.  The problem stems with people who view the very existence of others as "political," and those are exactly the types of views cultivated by hate porn media.


----------



## tabzer (Jun 4, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Like eight corporations control nearly everything in America, how would giving more control to them "decentralize the market?"



At least be consistent.  You aren't choosing all 8 when you choose 1.  With something as niche and emerging in demand as alternative education, it's an opportunity for you to start your own corporation and stop being such a whiner.



Xzi said:


> Well if your diagnosis of the problem is that we're too politically involved as Americans, you're way off base. Plenty of other countries have much less voter apathy and have next to no mass shootings annually. The problem stems with people who view the very existence of others as "political," and those are exactly the types of views cultivated by hate porn media.



Maybe consider the apathy that you have towards your government's worldwide terror regime may make you susceptible to "feedback".  The US government has a methodology in how it treats people, both outside and inside of its borders.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 4, 2022)

tabzer said:


> At least be consistent. You aren't choosing all 8 when you choose 1. With something as niche and emerging in demand as alternative education, it's an opportunity for you to start your own corporation and stop being such a whiner.


Man really just said "start my own corporation" lmao?  

What am I gonna do, open a lemonade stand next door to Wal-Mart?  Nah, best we got in America is the growing unionization movement, but I do wonder how large our capitalist overlords will allow it to grow before squashing it completely.



tabzer said:


> Maybe consider the apathy that you have towards your government's worldwide terror regime may make you susceptible to "feedback". The US government has a methodology in how it treats people, both outside and inside of its borders.


You're referring to the federal government, and sure, I'll concede that.  Education systems are run state-by-state in America, however, so it's a moot point.  The South, for instance, still teaches nearly everything about the Civil War wrong, but that includes their private schools as well as their public ones.


----------



## tabzer (Jun 4, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Man really just said "start my own corporation" lmao?
> 
> What am I gonna do, open a lemonade stand next door to Wal-Mart? Nah, best we got in America is the growing unionization movement, but I do wonder how large our capitalist overlords will allow it to grow before squashing it completely.



You aren't wrong to be skeptical or pessimistic.  It's just that neither of those translate into action, so you are being useless by default.  A person can try and fail 100 times, but succeed once and be successful.  The argument for futility makes no sense to me.  Isn't it less effort to just die? 



Xzi said:


> You're referring to the federal government, and sure, I'll concede that. Education systems are run state-by-state in America, however, so it's a moot point.



State and Federal government are joined in contract.  States are subsidiaries that need to be able to rationalize and uphold the position of their Federal government.  Moot?


----------



## Xzi (Jun 4, 2022)

tabzer said:


> You aren't wrong to be skeptical or pessimistic. It's just that neither of those translate into action, so you are being useless by default. A person can try and fail 100 times, but succeed once and be successful. The argument for futility makes no sense to me. Isn't it less effort to just die?


So if I'm not trying to "create my own corporation," I must not be doing anything else in life to make it worth living?  That's some kind of logic, bud.



tabzer said:


> State and Federal government are joined in contract. States are subsidiaries that need to be able to rationalize and uphold the position of their Federal government. Moot?


State laws can be and have been in conflict with federal laws, and states can and do have widely varying effectiveness in their education systems.  Just as they vary widely in any number of other metrics.


----------



## tabzer (Jun 4, 2022)

Xzi said:


> So if I'm not trying to "create my own corporation," I must not be doing anything else in life to make it worth living? That's some kind of logic, bud.



Starting a corporation was only one example after openly expressing that there are others.  You, yourself, considered the unionization approach.  Where am I saying that you must start a corporation or be useless?  This lot.  Either everything is pointless, or you are being offended.  For consistency, please just choose one.



Xzi said:


> State laws can be and have been in conflict with federal laws, and states can and do have widely varying effectiveness in their education systems. Just as they vary widely in any number of other metrics.



I'm not disputing that.  States can also sue, protest, and secede.  However, as it is, the Federal Government's will is being upheld, and your state's constituents are apart of the reason.  Your state's education has a vested interest in rationalizing and maintaining that mentality.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 4, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> Ah, my misunderstanding. Your solution is that mass shootings shouldn't be solved, because the status quo (freedom) is more important. At least you're willing to admit it, unlike the Republicans, who try to hand wave the problem away with "thoughts and prayers" and the like.


Again, define “solved”. They can certainly be addressed with policy and by individuals themselves. Banning access to firearms isn’t one of those solutions. The exercise of rights should never be infringed upon without reason - there’s an entire due process clause all about it. The government must necessarily try a person before depriving them of life, liberty or property. You could technically argue that the due process clause would be satisfied if there existed a law that enabled such a restriction, but the law itself would be unconstitutional and thus invalid, so you end up where you started either way. Lex iniusta non est lex, or, in the words of MLK, “one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws”.

EDIT: Lawl, I just realised that I’ve already responded to this post 2 pages ago - for some reason the site marked it as “new” for me. Oh well - this new response is consistent with the other one, but more detailed, so all is well.


----------



## JettRucker (Jun 4, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Are you suggesting that AI is in Holocaust Denial? Got any evidence?


ICRC inspected concentration camps during the war. They detected/reported no gas chambers, nor persuasive evidence of genocide. They have sequestered the reports on these inspections because of accusations/disfavor they would bear if the absence of such observations in them became known to promoters of the Holocausst narrative.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 4, 2022)

JettRucker said:


> ICRC inspected concentration camps during the war. They detected/reported no gas chambers, nor persuasive evidence of genocide. They have sequestered the reports on these inspections because of accusations/disfavor they would bear if the absence of such observations in them became known to promoters of the Holocausst narrative.


Am I speaking in Arabic? I asked about Amnesty International Now, not the Red Cross almost a century ago


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 4, 2022)

smf said:


> Except you then train all the "good" and bad guys with a gun, so the bad guys know what the "good" guys are trained to do and can figure out ways to mitigate against it.
> 
> Arming everyone without background checks is the worst idea ever.
> 
> So we're left with ever bigger locks on doors, which the shooter was able to utilize as it meant that nobody could escape or get in to stop him.



That's one of my biggest issues with republican views on second amendment rights. I can't say for sure that I'm totally against the idea that everyone has the RIGHT to own a gun, but I'll debate to the death over why not EVERYONE should have a gun. It's like freedom of speech; everyone has a right to voice their opinion, but not everyone should. 

It seems to be more and more apparent that the Republican view is, basically, give everyone guns and let them sort themselves out, which is literally a step away from full anarchy, which just like having a totalitarian government, is a dystopia that doesn't sit well with me. Give everyone guns but no preventative measures besides 3 free hot meals a day until they win an appeal? Seems just a lil sus to me.


----------



## AleronIves (Jun 4, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Shouldn’t? No - can’t, to a large extent. Only reduced. I don’t think anyone claims otherwise.





Foxi4 said:


> Again, define “solved”.


I concur. Even Europe still has some mass shootings. The US just has way more than anybody else. I should have used less absolute language.



Foxi4 said:


> I just realised that I’ve already responded to this post 2 pages ago - for some reason the site marked it as “new” for me.


I woke up to 9+ notifications, most of which were "collapsed", and when I tried to expand them, they disappeared. It took a while for me to find the right page where viewing them would actually work. 



tabzer said:


> Disconnect education from political control, then you'd see a massive reduction in school shootings.


I don't think the rise in mass shootings has to do with education. It stems from increasing levels of despair, especially in young men. I would argue that social media bears more blame than schools, although some mass shooters do seem to want revenge for being bullied in school.



smf said:


> Second amendment may have made sense in 1791, though that is still open for debate. It is literally insane nowadays.
> 
> The reason being is that it's much easier for people to control you than it was back then.


I would also argue that a) weapons have a much higher convenience factor today, as well as a much higher capacity to kill, and b) people are much more numerous and living in much closer quarters today. Centuries ago, you could potentially travel 50 miles in any direction and not reach another town. When you pack people together and give them easy ways to express their anger through violence, you're creating a dangerous situation that is guaranteed to result in bloodshed eventually.



Xzi said:


> I'm not a robot lmao.


Meep morp!


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 4, 2022)

tabzer said:


> This lot. Either everything is pointless, or you are being offended. For consistency, please just choose one.



I mean, isn't it like that with just about every platform? Take Conservative Republicans. It's either everyone has a gun, or they're offended by everything aside. Either no one has abortions, or everyone has to whine about it and call people murderers. Splitting hairs over polarizing ideals never leads to a fruitful debate. 

If anything, it seems quite a few people on here are open to compromise. 



AleronIves said:


> I would also argue that a) weapons have a much higher convenience factor today, as well as a much higher capacity to kill, and b) people are much more numerous and living in much closer quarters today. Centuries ago, you could potentially travel 50 miles in any direction and not reach another town. When you pack people together and give them easy ways to express their anger through violence, you're creating a dangerous situation that is guaranteed to result in bloodshed eventually.


 
I hate to be the one to say it (well, maybe not), but as a society, at least in America, the majority of citizens aren't as smart today as they have been over the previous decades, at least. Say what you will admit the reason, it also doesn't sit well with me that a continuous function of the majority of Republicans, certainly every NRA and related backed Republican, seems to push unnecessary gun sales. They use shootings of any severity to push the narrative that EVERYONE should buy guns and its like... Are you sure that's a good idea? Billy Bob down the street who clocked in at below average deserves to be radicalized to exercising his right to buy a rifle of any kind? Because there's a false narrative being pushed that his neighbor might kill him? Background checks won't cover IQ checks, and they certainly won't help when Sadistic Sally pops a blood vessel and decides to shoot up a... Well that happens kinda frequently anyway :

https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/


----------



## AleronIves (Jun 4, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> as a society, at least in America, the majority of citizens aren't as smart today as they have been over the previous decades, at least.


The European model addresses this. If you have to prove your competency with firearms, most mentally unfit people won't be able to get them. (Obviously it won't be 100% effective. We still have drunk drivers, despite the requirement to get a driver's license before you're allowed to drive.)



SyphenFreht said:


> They use shootings of any severity to push the narrative that EVERYONE should buy guns and its like... Are you sure that's a good idea?


Legally speaking, it doesn't matter if it's a good idea. The SA says your right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. There is no "unless you're stupid" clause. Naturally, the gun industry has taken advantage of this to make as much profit as possible by selling guns to people who don't need, and probably shouldn't have, them. You, I, and all of Europe agree this is dumb. SA supporters think it's an acceptable price to pay for freedom in the area of self defense.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 4, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> If you have to prove your competency with firearms, most mentally unfit people won't be able to get them...



Isn't that the goal? Making sure guns are available to everyone except those who shouldn't have them? 



AleronIves said:


> Legally speaking, it doesn't matter if it's a good idea. The SA says your right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. There is no "unless you're stupid" clause. Naturally, the gun industry has taken advantage of this to make as much profit as possible by selling guns to people who don't need, and probably shouldn't have, them. You, I, and all of Europe agree this is dumb. SA supporters think it's an acceptable price to pay for freedom in the area of self defense.



That's such an odd concept to me, bleeding hearts because the government says it's ok. I could use the example "but slavery was legal once" but honestly? While the idea behind the right hasn't changed, I think the general morality behind it has. In a country that places so many restrictions in the most asinine places I completely empathize the feeling of wanting to hold on to something so bad in light of its possible seizure. But the right to bear arms shouldn't be called by people wanting to misuse it (i.e. gun sales, etc.), it should be by people who genuinely wish to use it the way its intended: to protect oneself from threat. No I'm not referring to people who wish to own a gun for sport, for hunting, whatever, I'm referring to people who want to own a gun because they're anti people living in a society full of what they hate. I'm referring to people who want to own a gun simply because its a right, not a responsibility. Pro gunners like to equate firearms to tools, and that's ok, but then no one cares to take the time to learn the trade and bear the responsibility of owning said tool because it violates some words some dead guys wrote 300 years ago that wouldn't matter aside from the fact that you CHOOSE to live in a society that permits you that right.

Tl;dr: I don't like seeing the 2nd amendment blatantly misused by both sides of the political spectrum.


----------



## AleronIves (Jun 4, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Isn't that the goal? Making sure guns are available to everyone except those who shouldn't have them?


It is our goal, but it is not the goal of SA absolutists. Their goal is only to reduce mass shootings in ways that do not infringe upon their SA rights, which means restricting who can get guns is off the table for them.



SyphenFreht said:


> Pro gunners like to equate firearms to tools, and that's ok, but then no one cares to take the time to learn the trade and bear the responsibility of owning said tool because it violates some words some dead guys wrote 300 years ago that wouldn't matter aside from the fact that you CHOOSE to live in a society that permits you that right.


You have to be very careful with an argument like that. As I've said before, yes, "rights" don't actually exist. They're a mental construct that we created. The same is true of government. Government does not have power over us because there are a bunch of suits sitting in a building with a fancy dome. Government has power over us because we willingly curtail our own freedom in accordance with the law, because we believe the benefits of doing so are greater for ourselves and for society than if we lived in anarchy.

You're technically correct that the Constitution is just "some words some dead guys wrote 300 years ago"; however, if you take that position, you are advocating for anarchy, and I doubt you'd like all the wider implications of not having rights and laws anymore. The Constitution only exists in practice as long as the people agree to abide by its principles. One of those principles is that you can change the Constitution, if you get Congress and enough statehouses to agree. The Constitutional way to fix the SA is to pass another amendment, not to just pretend that the SA doesn't exist. If you can't get enough Americans to agree that the SA needs to go, then it stays. That's how the system works, and working within the system is preferable to undermining the system, since the alternative to the system (anarchy) is even worse.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 4, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> It is our goal, but it is not the goal of SA absolutists. Their goal is only to reduce mass shootings in ways that do not infringe upon their SA rights, which means restricting who can get guns is off the table for them.



Which puts everyone in a bind because, again, some people just flat out shouldn't have guns but even more than that, absolutionists usually aren't willing to compromise on anything that could potentially reduce shootings of any kind. They fight about paying taxes, they fight about gun control measures of any kind, they fight about supporting proper education (moreso than just the usual "Do your research" bullshit). Granted I've seen one or two through here that break the mold, but in the case of persuading the majority (aligning your comment below), it seems we're just constantly going to be divided and blocked until the next "tyrannical dictator" of a president comes along and attempts to executive order their way through one side or the other. 



AleronIves said:


> You have to be very careful with an argument like that. As I've said before, yes, "rights" don't actually exist. They're a mental construct that we created. The same is true of government. Government does not have power over us because there are a bunch of suits sitting in a building with a fancy dome. Government has power over us because we willingly curtail our own freedom in accordance with the law, because we believe the benefits of doing so are greater for ourselves and for society than if we lived in anarchy.



I agree. And with the point you make below, I agree that full anarchy isn't the way either. Some people need to be governed, but no mass should adhere only to the voice of a few that likely don't represent them. 



AleronIves said:


> You're technically correct that the Constitution is just "some words some dead guys wrote 300 years ago"; however, if you take that position, you are advocating for anarchy, and I doubt you'd like all the wider implications of not having rights and laws anymore. The Constitution only exists in practice as long as the people agree to abide by its principles. One of those principles is that you can change the Constitution, if you get Congress and enough statehouses to agree. The Constitutional way to fix the SA is to pass another amendment, not to just pretend that the SA doesn't exist. If you can't get enough Americans to agree that the SA needs to go, then it stays. That's how the system works, and working within the system is preferable to undermining the system, since the alternative to the system (anarchy) is even worse.



First off, I don't mean to minimalize the Constitution, but I do mean to imply that the perspective we as Americans have toward this event is grossly misshapen. It's a fine lined fence I sit upon, knowing no man should be ruled but also understanding that society needs direction. It would be a nice utopian fantasy to exist where the morals and ambition of all people were created equal, while still holding that which makes us unique.


----------



## Creamu (Jun 5, 2022)

I think this debate has it wrong. We should let people have guns all they want, but make kindness mandatory.


----------



## AleronIves (Jun 5, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> it seems we're just constantly going to be divided and blocked until the next "tyrannical dictator" of a president comes along and attempts to executive order their way through one side or the other.


Well, polling suggests that most Americans are willing to accept some gun control measures. They just haven't voted for representatives who share that view. Until people start treating gun control as a key issue and become willing to vote for candidates solely based on their gun control views, I agree nothing will change. Republicans oppose all gun control because voters have consistently rewarded them for doing so. The party platform on guns will change only if voters start kicking them out of office for their stance on gun control.

Of course, Republicans are much better at politics than Democrats, and they know that what really matters is which party controls the SCOTUS. Even if we somehow get gun control legislation passed, the 6-3 Republican SCOTUS will just strike it down for violating the SA, and we'll be back at square one. Options for addressing this include changing the makeup of the SCOTUS so that a Democratic majority can turn a blind eye to violations of SA rights, or repealing the SA. The first option would undermine the rule of law even more and is therefore a bad idea, and the second option is politically improbable; therefore, the odds are that as usual, nothing will change.


----------



## tabzer (Jun 5, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> I mean, isn't it like that with just about every platform? Take Conservative Republicans. It's either everyone has a gun, or they're offended by everything aside. Either no one has abortions, or everyone has to whine about it and call people murderers. Splitting hairs over polarizing ideals never leads to a fruitful debate.
> 
> If anything, it seems quite a few people on here are open to compromise.
> 
> ...


I was talking about the argument of futility.  The whole I can't, or it's pointless attitude.  But when it comes to being offended, they know exactly who they are and what they can do.  I didn't think finding alternatives to public education was polarizing, but maybe you are right.

Also, I don't think it is the fear of mass shootings that drive these surges of gun sales.  It's fears about the 2A being 'fringed and FOMO.  It is true that this might be their last chance to buy some of these weapons.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 5, 2022)

@AleronIves I’ll add my two cents in regards to the “unless you’re stupid” part of the debate. There’s a whole lot of things people *shouldn’t* do if they’re stupid, and most of that list includes things that are also dangerous to others. The U.S. was built on the premise of liberty, rampant individualism and self-determination - nobody except yourself can tell you what you are or aren’t “smart enough” to do, within the confines of the law. In fact, discrimination based on immutable characteristics, including intelligence, was outlawed in most countries, not just the U.S. - it’s a generally agreed upon pronciple. Very few places are still technically allowed to do it, and funnily enough, those places are usually ran by the government.

Example time. 290 people electrocute themselves to death in the bathtub or shower every year in the U.S. and 75% of those cases are intentional suicides. That leaves 73 people a year who, by the proposed “unless you’re stupid” metric, are either too stupid to live or simply very, very unlucky. Should we regulate the sale of hairdryers or shavers based on those casualties? No, of course not. We make an effort to introduce building code which minimises such casualties - electric outlets in bathrooms are required to be connected via a GFCI (ground fault circuit interrupter). Does that prevent all death? No. Does that give us a justification to inconvenience people we deem “stupid” from buying household essentials based on the small probability that they might get hurt? Also no - that’s ridiculous. This is what we call an acceptable risk margin. We *know* that unrestricted sale of hairdryers will lead to death every single year, but we allow it because having dry hair is kind of a big deal. You could say that we sacrifice 73 people a year on the altar of convenience - we could test people before we sell those dangerous items, as in dangerous in the hands of an idiot, but we don’t - idiots will always find a way to be stupid. If you make something foolproof, the world will always invent a better idiot to compensate. We can mitigate, we can try to prevent excess death, but we can’t stop it - not unless we lock everyone up in padded cells and throw freedom out the window. Freedom trumps safety.

There was a time when we discriminated based on such characteristics, and it took us to some dark places. Ultimately the test of time showed us that societies which value personal freedom fare infinitely better than those that don’t. This is the crux of the gun debate issue. Everyone has a different set of values, but regardless of what values you hold or what the law happens to be, the relevant question to ask is “should we inconvenience 330 million Americans because a small fraction of them will die”, and to me the answer is and always will be a resounding and emphatic “no”. We can’t control gun violence, but we can control whether or not we have the liberty to self-determine. The latter is more important than the former, it’s a quintessential principle in a free society.

Should everyone be armed? My opinion is that any capable adult of sound body and mind should at least *know* how to safely operate a firearm, should the need to do so arise. This used to be a standard part of the curriculum not so long ago in my home country, and to an extent it still is. Back when my sisters were kids, they were taught how to shoot a rifle and how to toss a grenade, in school - no kidding, Poland has bad experiences with their neighbours. A lot of time has passed and when I was in school, a trip to the range sufficed. Every school still teaches self-defense to older kids, there’s a dedicated class for it. Do we do it because we expect to go to war? No, of course not, but being able to defend yourself and your loved ones is part of being an adult. There are times in life when you need to rise to the occasion, and it’s better to be mentally prepared than to “wing it” and endanger yourself and others. People who think they have a legitimate need to own a firearm should be able to purchase one, but there’s no compulsion here - nobody forces you to be armed. The important part is that nobody should be prohibiting it - it’s for you to determine what’s the right thing to do.

I’m rambling, aren’t I? Oh well. Just some thoughts to ponder.


Creamu said:


> I think this debate has it wrong. We should let people have guns all they want, but make kindness mandatory.


Speak for yourself, I identify strongly with the Grinch.



tabzer said:


> Also, I don't think it is the fear of mass shootings that drive these surges of gun sales.  It's fears about the 2A being 'fringed and FOMO.  It is true that this might be their last chance to buy some of these weapons.


I agree with this assessment. People always hurry to purchase goods the government will possibly restrict if they already had plans to do so regardless, in the hopes that their prior purchase will be grandfathered in. Lex prospicit non respicit - the law looks forwards, not backwards. It rarely work ex post facto, people generally aren’t punished retroactively for conduct that was legal when it was committed, although there are exceptions. If it’s legal to purchase something right now, there are only two future outcomes - an exemption or a buy-back. If one can buy a certain thing now and might not be able to tomorrow, the outcome is fairly predictable. There’s nothing quite like the spectre of gun control as a knee-jerk reaction to a tragedy when it comes to driving the sales of firearms, people tend to exercise their rights while they still can if they feel that they’re threatened.


----------



## AleronIves (Jun 5, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> That leaves 73 people a year who, by the proposed “unless you’re stupid” metric, are either too stupid to live or simply very, very unlucky. Should we regulate the sale of hairdryers or shavers based on those casualties? No, of course not.


This reminds me of how when people jump off bridges, the government responds by putting up barriers to try to stop people from jumping off. Of course, the government doesn't do this out of concern for people who might commit suicide. It does this to reduce its legal liability from family members who might sue the city for owning the bridge Uncle Stan jumped off of.



Foxi4 said:


> We *know* that unrestricted sale of hairdryers will lead to death every single year, but we allow it because having dry hair is kind of a big deal. You could say that we sacrifice 73 people a year on the altar of convenience - we could test people before we sell those dangerous items, as in dangerous in the hands of an idiot, but we don’t - idiots will always find a way to be stupid.


The thing is, the level of restriction should roughly correlate to the level of risk. We don't require a license for you to operate a hairdryer, because the risk is significantly lower than driving a car. I don't think it's fair to compare hairdryers, or even cars, to guns. The purpose of a hairdryer is to dry hair. The purpose of a car is to take you from point A to point B. Can people cause serious harm with hairdryers and cars by misusing them? Yes, but harm is only a side effect of misuse. It isn't the primary function of a hairdryer or a car.

The primary function of a gun is to kill. Yes, a gun can allow you to accomplish things with only the _threat_ of killing, such as by firing a warning shot or by merely showing somebody that you have one, but the primary purpose of a gun is still to inflict bodily harm upon a target of your choice from a safe distance. The idea that we shouldn't regulate hairdryers because a few people might kill themselves with one is not comparable to the regulation of guns, whose sole reason for existence is causing bodily harm to others. Frankly, the comparison is preposterous, and it's a little disturbing that you would suggest the risk to public safety posed by hairdryers and guns is equivalent, and therefore we should regulate neither of them.



Foxi4 said:


> Freedom trumps safety.


Does it, though? You seem like a libertarian, but you have already given up significant freedom to the government. The government takes your money through taxation, and even most libertarians agree that this is an acceptable infringement of liberty, because the state has an important role to play when it comes to national defense and the police. The government reduces your rights through many laws, and (I assume) you obey most of them, despite your liberty being curtailed.

Unless you're a libertarian anarchist who thinks a state of total liberty is the ideal, we both agree that the government can, and even *should* curtail liberty in some areas to ensure the common good. We're merely disagreeing on where the line should be drawn between liberty and public safety when it comes to guns.

If you're an anarchist, then yes, we're probably not going to agree on anything. 



Foxi4 said:


> Everyone has a different set of values, but regardless of what values you hold or what the law happens to be, the relevant question to ask is “should we inconvenience 330 million Americans because a small fraction of them will die”, and to me the answer is and always will be a resounding and emphatic “no”.


Obviously you're talking about guns here, but let me reframe the example: do you think we should abolish the DMV, because getting a driver's license is an inconvenience for 330 million Americans that unacceptably infringes on their right to freedom of movement in the name of keeping stupid people off the roads?


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 5, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> This reminds me of how when people jump off bridges, the government responds by putting up barriers to try to stop people from jumping off. Of course, the government doesn't do this out of concern for people who might commit suicide. It does this to reduce its legal liability from family members who might sue the city for owning the bridge Uncle Stan jumped off of.
> 
> The thing is, the level of restriction should roughly correlate to the level of risk. We don't require a license for you to operate a hairdryer, because the risk is significantly lower than driving a car. I don't think it's fair to compare hairdryers, or even cars, to guns. The purpose of a hairdryer is to dry hair. The purpose of a car is to take you from point A to point B. Can people cause serious harm with hairdryers and cars by misusing them? Yes, but harm is only a side effect of misuse. It isn't the primary function of a hairdryer or a car.
> 
> ...


It’s not really about the number, it’s about culpability. The premise is this - people who are pro-gun are often told that they refuse to acquiesce because they’re unfeeling or unkind, they do nothing despite knowing that without more severe restrictions on gun ownership people will continue to die at rates we’re all aware of. It’s not a maybe - there’s a number of deaths per annum, and that number gets blasted every single time this conversation comes up. The (silly) argument here is that through inaction that side of the argument accepts culpability. Pro gun people “don’t care” that X people die every year, because if they did, they’d want to do something about it rather than offer “thoughts and prayers”. It’s “their fault” because they did nothing to prevent it from happening. Makes sense so far?

Now, you are probably aware that people sometimes die after having a bath with a toaster, or some other appliance - everybody knows that. The difference is that it’s just an idea - most people don’t know what degree of damage is done. Without a figure, you have the argument of ignorance - you don’t have to think about restrictions on the sale of electrical appliances because you don’t know how many people die because of them, it never even crosses your mind, it’s not a concern. Now I’ve given you a number, and you’re aware of how many people take their last bath because, either accidentally or intentionally, they get electrocuted to death (which is an awful way to go). You have to ask yourself a question - “do I do something about it or not”?

You know people die due to misuse of firearms and you want to reduce that number, so you are a proponent of gun control - you make an effort, therefore you’re not culpable. You are now operating from an educated position regarding electrocution in a bathtub, you can no longer claim ignorance - 290 people a year die, and you know that. The pro gun control logic suggests that if you don’t support electrical appliance licensing based on level of proficiency or “common sense”, you’re unkind and unfeeling - you don’t care about the people who die. They die “because of you”, in a manner of speaking. If you’re okay with it because the number of deaths is low in your estimation, you’ve assigned a value to human life and decided that this level of loss is acceptable, which goes in the face of the general principle that every life matters. If you do support it, you can imagine a circumstance in which a person is refused a toaster because they’re “too stupid” to wield one without supervision. You’re okay with grown adults being restricted from commerce because, in your estimation, they can’t be trusted with a kettle or a hairdryer, before they even did anything wrong or caused any harm. Forget about the degree of risk, or about comparing one to the other - people are dying in both cases, and some of that loss of life is preventable. If you don’t prevent those deaths, are you culpable?

I think not. I think that premise is silly, so I’m bringing it up. I never found it convincing. There is *a* person responsible behind every gun-related death, the person that pulled the trigger. I am for restricting the rights of that guilty party, I am against social engineering and infringing upon the freedom of innocent people because you assume some of them *might* offend in the future. Addressing the problem collectively penalises the many for the sins of the few. There are other, better ways to address the issue that don’t entail infringement of people’s rights.

There’s a general misconception that equates libertarians and anarchists. Libertarians are *not* against the existence of a state, they support boundaries. The constitution isn’t a document that functions as a limitation on the citizens - it’s a limitation on the government. This makes it unique in all of law, it outlines a select few things the government is *not* allowed to do, no matter what. One of those things is the right to bear arms. The government isn’t in a position of authority to even *ask* why a citizen would want one, that’s up to the citizen.

Another thing libertarians like is personal responsibility. We know that taking a bath with a toaster is most times fatal, but we’ll never stop a stranger from trying to keep their water warm that way - you go on ahead and do that, put in a good word for me at the pearly gates. We might say something, or perhaps do something if we care about that person specifically, but that’s about it.

We *also* know that access to guns *will* inevitably lead to death, but we value the right of law abiding citizens to own them higher than any negative consequence that may entail. We do not accept the premise of “common good” - I can imagine a whole lot of things that would ensure common good, all of which are unacceptable infringements of liberty. Only individual good is relevant, and it is in an individual’s interest to do as they please as long as they do no harm. If they *start* doing harm, we can talk about restricting the freedoms of that one particular individual, but restricting freedoms of the entire population unilaterally should be avoided.

I don’t think the comparison of driver’s licenses and firearm licenses adequately addresses the situation. As I’ve said in an earlier point, both are dangerous, but driving is a group activity whereas shooting is not. You drive on a public road shared by other drivers and as such should generally show a degree of competence in order to ensure that you can share the road with them every day without causing a disturbance to traffic.

Guns aren’t like that - there are many uses for a gun. A sporting gun spends most of its shelf life in a case or a safe, it’s only used at the range or at sporting competitions, and the range probably has membership requirements as it is. You’re operating it by yourself. A hunting rifle is used in a forest, in isolation - you’re there either by yourself or with a hunting party that has some kind of agreement about the hunting arrangements, not to mention that hunting is a separately regulated activity. The odds of running into anyone are very low - you’re never stuck in traffic of hunters queuing for a deer. A self-defense weapon sits in a holster - even when you’re open carrying, you *generaliy* don’t wave your weapon around, you take it out when you’re in danger. If you’re one of those guys who parade guns in town just because muh rights, you’re entitled to do so, but you’re being a dick. I don’t think the two are alike. The gun doesn’t enter the equation until it is drawn, in the same way as a car doesn’t enter the equation until you drive it. I’m pretty sure you can own vehicles without a license - a license is required strictly to operate a car in traffic, on a road.

Besides, I don’t think I ever voiced an opinion against firearms registration, or not being proficient with them - if you own a weapon, you should put hundreds of rounds through it every year, otherwise you’ll get rusty. That’s an ideal, few people do it, but that’s what I recommend. The same could be said about driving, and yet you have no shortage of Sunday drivers. Grandpa hasn’t sat behind the wheel for the last 5 years, but one day he just needs to get some doughnuts so he drives, even though the bugger can barely see - dangerous doesn’t even describe it.

Sorry for making verbose posts, but I want the point to be as clear as it can be. All in all though, different strokes for different folks, I suppose. To me, it seems you have the wrong idea about libertarians. We’re not anarchists, we just believe the government has specific responsibilities, and controlling the life of its citizens isn’t one of them. Of course there’s no shortage of libertarians who will argue with you in earnest that drivers shouldn’t need licenses, and they’ll even give you some salient arguments, but ultimately they’re clowns. Every political persuasion has clowns - there’s no shortage of leftoids or rightoids, it’s not unique to the “unusual” groups.


----------



## tabzer (Jun 5, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> I don't think the rise in mass shootings has to do with education. It stems from increasing levels of despair, especially in young men. I would argue that social media bears more blame than schools, although some mass shooters do seem to want revenge for being bullied in school.


I am aware of your position.  I don't agree.  Please tell me what you remember about what you were taught about the 2nd amendment.   Being taught that you, as an individual, have not only the right but a duty to keep your government in check is one of the most liberating and entrusting things a child can learn.  It almost makes what the US is, as bad as it may be, appear to be salvageable.  I wouldn't want anyone deprived of such information.  When did it start being irrelevant?

I can't imagine a school shooter existing with that knowledge.  I can imagine why a school shooter would exist without it.

The difference between being offered the keys to the future and being denied the future are worlds apart.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 5, 2022)

tabzer said:


> I am aware of your position.  I don't agree.  Please tell me what you remember about what you were taught about the 2nd amendment.   Being taught that you, as an individual, have not only the right but a duty to keep your government in check is one of the most liberating and entrusting things a child can learn.  It almost makes what the US is, as bad as it may be, appear to be salvageable.  I wouldn't want anyone deprived of such information.  When did it start being irrelevant?
> 
> I can't imagine a school shooter existing with that knowledge.  I can imagine why a school shooter would exist without it.
> 
> The difference between being offered the keys to the future and being denied the future are worlds apart.


There’s more to he said about the educational aspect. This is controversial, but I believe young teens should be taught about firearms, in school. They should be allowed to use them under supervision, strictly to understand how they work, the damage they can do and the reverence they deserve. In the absence of that, they’re just toys that go “boom”, rather than highly dangerous tools to be used at very specific times.

If density of weapons translates to frequency of mass shootings, you’d *expect* there to be a mass shooting at a gun range, gun store or military base every single day - you have ample access to weapons and ammunition, and plenty of targets in and outside of the location. That doesn’t happen - the most “popular” choices of venue for mass shooters are schools, businesses, various public events like concerts and other areas where there are 1) large crowds, and 2) of defenseless people. That’s not to say that they don’t happen, but they’re significantly less frequent. Perhaps the fact that the crowds at those locations are more educated, and likely armed, which makes them capable of confronting a shooter, works as a deterrent. That of course applies logic to the inherently deranged behaviour of a mass shooter, not to mention personal motivation (distress felt at school due to bullying giving a revenge motive, for instance), but it is *a* difference.

Children are already trained and taught what to do in the event of an active shooter situation - they know how to run and how to hide, or who to contact in the event of an emergency. Perhaps some education in regards to firearms themselves would take some of the mystique away, make them less alluring, less of a forbidden fruit and more of a tool, which is what they are. Perhaps the effect would be the opposite. Who knows - what I do know is that we teach children not to stick forks into outlets because they might get shocked, and that’s knowledge children have when plugging something in. They have this possible consequence in mind and know it’s not a toy to be played with… for the most part.


----------



## smf (Jun 5, 2022)

Creamu said:


> I think this debate has it wrong. We should let people have guns all they want, but make kindness mandatory.


As a lot of people think of themselves as kind, even while they are gunning someone down then I don't see how that works.



AleronIves said:


> Well, polling suggests that most Americans are willing to accept some gun control measures. They just haven't voted for representatives who share that view.


They haven't voted for enough representatives who share that view.

The fillibuster allows a minority to control debates, so you'd need a landslide victory.



Foxi4 said:


> Should we regulate the sale of hairdryers or shavers based on those casualties? No, of course not.


Of course not, but then I don't see the leap to guns. As far as I can tell the hairdryer and shaver accidents only kill the operator, there is no malicious use possible.



AleronIves said:


> This reminds me of how when people jump off bridges, the government responds by putting up barriers to try to stop people from jumping off. Of course, the government doesn't do this out of concern for people who might commit suicide. It does this to reduce its legal liability from family members who might sue the city for owning the bridge Uncle Stan jumped off of.


Are you sure? I don't know about the US, but in the UK they install phones in the middle of bridges that are commonly used for suicide attempts.

There is a cost to society for raising children (school system etc) and if you don't try to prevent them from killing themselves then that money is wasted.

It seems some bridges in the US have phones too....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicides_at_the_Golden_Gate_Bridge


----------



## Creamu (Jun 5, 2022)

smf said:


> As a lot of people think of themselves as kind, even while they are gunning someone down then I don't see how that works.


With rules, culture and a coherent society.


----------



## tabzer (Jun 5, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> There’s more to he said about the educational aspect. This is controversial, but I believe young teens should be taught about firearms, in school. They should be allowed to use them under supervision, strictly to understand how they work, the damage they can do and the reverence they deserve. In the absence of that, they’re just toys that go “boom”, rather than highly dangerous tools to be used at very specific times.
> 
> If density of weapons translates to frequency of mass shootings, you’d *expect* there to be a mass shooting at a gun range, gun store or military base every single day - you have ample access to weapons and ammunition, and plenty of targets in and outside of the location. That doesn’t happen - the most “popular” choices of venue for mass shooters are schools, businesses, various public events like concerts and other areas where there are 1) large crowds, and 2) of defenseless people. That’s not to say that they don’t happen, but they’re significantly less frequent. Perhaps the fact that the crowds at those locations are more educated, and likely armed, which makes them capable of confronting a shooter, works as a deterrent. That of course applies logic to the inherently deranged behaviour of a mass shooter, not to mention personal motivation (distress felt at school due to bullying giving a revenge motive, for instance), but it is *a* difference.
> 
> Children are already trained and taught what to do in the event of an active shooter situation - they know how to run and how to hide, or who to contact in the event of an emergency. Perhaps some education in regards to firearms themselves would take some of the mystique away, make them less alluring, less of a forbidden fruit and more of a tool, which is what they are. Perhaps the effect would be the opposite. Who knows - what I do know is that we teach children not to stick forks into outlets because they might get shocked, and that’s knowledge children have when plugging something in. They have this possible consequence in mind and know it’s not a toy to be played with… for the most part.


I very much understand where you are coming from and appreciate your input.  A lot of what you are saying is both logical and reasonable.  I'm trying to appeal to the people who are actually empathetic with children.  When it comes to this current situation, if someone says "education" is not the issue, I wonder what the purpose or power of education is, if it cannot be convincing enough to deter children from becoming becoming nihilists. 

People who are excited about being apart of society are moving fast to establish and fortify the positions of people who would discard them.  I think the fact that more politicians aren't the targets of mass shooters should be eye-opening.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 5, 2022)

smf said:


> Of course not, but then I don't see the leap to guns. As far as I can tell the hairdryer and shaver accidents only kill the operator, there is no malicious use possible.


Untrue due to how plumbing works. Water pipes are grounded, and a GFCI detects leakage current from the meter. In the event of a GFCI fault and active current leakage, the entirety of the pipe work is live, including central heating, and for all intents and purposes could kill anyone who comes in contact with it until the fault is removed, the wiring melts or the supply is otherwise interrupted, most commonly due to the main breaker finally popping. If it happens in an apartment building, you can have a whale of a time in multiple apartments for as long as the piping is live. Construction hint for all the young gamers in the DIY space - if you feel a slight tingle when touching a water pipe, look for a ground fault immediately. You could conceivably make an entire wall in your house “live” if it’s damp. Water pipes shouldn’t give you electric shocks, but they *can* if the grounding is faulty. It used to be standard practice to clip on an additional ground onto metal pipe work before working on it in order to avoid the danger of accidental electric shock. It doesn’t take much to cause a dangerous situation - nobody expects their tap to kill them, and wet skin is an excellent conductor, whereas normally it’d function as an insulator.


----------



## tabzer (Jun 5, 2022)

@Foxi4 Maybe I am coming off as an asshole.  I don't mean to imply that I understand your life story and your personal connection to the moral/philosophical aspects on this subject.

Maybe it is worth mentioning that all gun control measures that have been taken in response to these scenarios have only resulted in 2x the outcome?


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 5, 2022)

tabzer said:


> @Foxi4 Maybe I am coming off as an asshole.  I don't mean to imply that I understand your life story and your personal connection to the moral/philosophical aspects on this subject.


Don’t worry, even if you were coming off as one, I wouldn’t mind - people imply all sorts of things about me all the time. I argue for sport and pleasure. Sometimes for things I agree with, sometimes for things I don’t agree with, just to play devil’s advocate, keep the discussion going and see what happens. I think it’s fun, that’s all there is to it. People who know me personally know my views in more detail, as quirky as they may be.


----------



## Creamu (Jun 5, 2022)

In general I see both sides of the argument come with certain implications.

If guns are available to all it is implied, that you cannot go around messing with other people you come across in your daily live. It implies an understanding that there must be a common understanding of proper conduct. It also implies that certain entities cannot be around in this type of society at all. If you cannot follow proper conduct in general you cannot be tolerated in a society that allows for guns for all. This includes the government.


The other side of the argument implies, that the breach of conduct, like a tryannical state or unruly entities can be brought to order by other means, such as voting, calling the police, tolerance. I personally can't see a mechanism that insures that these alternative ways cannot be just defused by hostile entities. In a anarcho tyrannical state voting won't help, calling the police wont help, tolerance won't help. How is this a sound approach?


----------



## AncientBoi (Jun 5, 2022)

Creamu said:


> In general I see both sides of the argument come with certain implications.
> 
> If guns are available to all it is implied, that you cannot go around messing with other people you come across in your daily live. It implies an understanding that there must be a common understanding of proper conduct. It also implies that certain entities cannot be around in this type of society at all. If you cannot follow proper conduct in general you cannot be tolerated in a society that allows for guns for all. This includes the government.
> 
> ...




Thought all you can see is EMF waves.


----------



## Creamu (Jun 5, 2022)

AncientBoi said:


> Thought all you can see is EMF waves.


Yes I'm like a sunshine Neo I can decode the waves.


----------



## AleronIves (Jun 5, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> It’s not really about the number, it’s about culpability. The premise is this - people who are pro-gun are often told that they refuse to acquiesce because they’re unfeeling or unkind, they do nothing despite knowing that without more severe restrictions on gun ownership people will continue to die at rates we’re all aware of.


I think you missed the point of my argument. I agree with you that some gun-control advocates suggest that gun-control opponents are unfeeling monsters because they "don't care" about the people who die from gun violence. I agree with you that this is a bad argument. If we apply that logic to other things, we need to abolish cars in order to prevent people from dying in car crashes, and that is not practical, because the benefits cars bring to society are more important than the lives lost in car crashes. Does that make us unfeeling monsters for saying so? Maybe, but at least we're being honest about where our priorities are.

The majority of your post is arguing against an argument I didn't make; I agree with you that "gun rights advocates are unfeeling monsters" is a common argument, and I also agree with you that it's not a compelling one. I feel like you didn't really address anything I said, though. You got caught up in refuting a common argument for gun control, instead of refuting mine.

My point is that the level of restriction must correlate with the level of risk and be balanced against the level of utility. We do not regular hairdryers at all, because the risk is low. You can't easily kill another person with a hairdryer. You can potentially kill yourself with one by electrocuting yourself, but the damage dealt by your own stupidity is limited to you, so that's on you. The benefit to society of people being able to quickly dry their hair outweighs the lives lost to hairdryer electrocutions. The level of risk is low, and the level of utility is high.

We put restrictions on cars because their operation carries higher risk than the operation of a hairdryer. Yes, you can kill yourself in a car crash, but you can also kill other people who were driving safely and minding their own business until you plowed into them. As such, we restrict who can drive in order to improve public safety. Most people agree that this infringement of liberty is not only acceptable but even positive, because it saves lives with minimal impact on people's freedom of movement. The level of risk is high, but the level of utility is also high; therefore, the level of restriction must be higher than the level of restriction imposed upon hairdryers.

Guns do not kill people as a side effect of misuse. The primary purpose of a gun is to kill. The idea of "misuse" when it comes to guns is that you killed the wrong person, i.e. somebody who didn't deserve it. As I said in my last post, having a gun may allow you to accomplish your goal without killing, such as by firing a warning shot or showing a potential assailant that you're armed, but the primary purpose of a gun is still to kill. As such, the level of risk associated with guns is high.

The question then becomes, what is the level of utility? The common argument for allowing guns is self defense, but I argue that there are other ways to achieve self defense without owning a gun. You can call the police, use a knife, use a baseball bat, learn a martial art, install a better security system on your house, and so forth. There are many options available to you for self defense besides gun ownership; therefore, I conclude that the level of risk is high and the level of utility is low, or at the very least, the level of utility is not high enough to negate the risk; therefore, restrictions on guns are not only justified but necessary.

As I've said before, I don't believe in banning all guns. I do believe that you should have to pass some kind of certification before being allowed to get one. The idea that we need driver's licenses to keep the roads safe, but anyone should be able to buy a gun with no restrictions is madness in my view. Guns are more dangerous and have lower utility than cars, so the level of restriction for gun ownership must be at least equal, and almost certainly higher, than car ownership. It should not be lower.

This is why I need you to answer my question about whether you would prefer to abolish the DMV (Department of Motor Vehicles) in the US, because it's an unnecessary infringement of people's freedom of movement to require driver's licenses. If you believe this, then obviously you wouldn't want restrictions on gun ownership, either, because you think freedom is more important than public safety. I can respect that position, because it's logically consistent. If you think the DMV is fine but gun control is not, then I think you're being intellectually inconsistent. If your defense is, "The Constitution protects the right to keep and bear arms. It doesn't protect the right to drive a car," then I would say you're technically correct. The Constitution is intellectually inconsistent in this area, and that's why I want to change it. The idea that we can regulate modes of transportation to improve public safety, but we can't regulate guns, is madness.



Foxi4 said:


> There’s a general misconception that equates libertarians and anarchists. Libertarians are *not* against the existence of a state, they support boundaries.


I didn't say that. I said there were some schools of libertarian thought that say all government is bad, and a state of total liberty (anarchy) is the ideal. I wanted to be sure you were a mainstream libertarian and not an "all government is bad" libertarian to ensure that we had some common ground to stand on for our debate. You have now confirmed that we do.



Foxi4 said:


> We *also* know that access to guns *will* inevitably lead to death, but we value the right of law abiding citizens to own them higher than any negative consequence that may entail. We do not accept the premise of “common good” - I can imagine a whole lot of things that would ensure common good, all of which are unacceptable infringements of liberty.


Does this mean you're against taxation? The only purpose of taxation is to ensure the common good, and it does so by infringing upon the the rights of the individual. You claim to not be an anarchist, but at times you sure sound like one.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 5, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> I think you missed the point of my argument. I agree with you that some gun-control advocates suggest that gun-control opponents are unfeeling monsters because they "don't care" about the people who die from gun violence. I agree with you that this is a bad argument. If we apply that logic to other things, we need to abolish cars in order to prevent people from dying in car crashes, and that is not practical, because the benefits cars bring to society are more important than the lives lost in car crashes. Does that make us unfeeling monsters for saying so? Maybe, but at least we're being honest about where our priorities are.
> 
> The majority of your post is arguing against an argument I didn't make; I agree with you that "gun rights advocates are unfeeling monsters" is a common argument, and I also agree with you that it's not a compelling one. I feel like you didn't really address anything I said, though. You got caught up in refuting a common argument for gun control, instead of refuting mine.
> 
> ...


I’m aware that you weren’t making that argument - I was interested in what your response to it would’ve been. What schools of libertarianism do you refer to? I think you might be describing anarcho-capitalists, I’m a moderate minarchist myself. I believe the government has very defined and narrow goals, whenever it steps beyond them it usually ends in disaster. As such, “most” taxation is theft - the state should run on the absolute bare minimum, it should be of minimal size and scope. Minimal interference, maximum functionality. This thread isn’t about my political beliefs though, it’s about gun control.

Notice that you’re approaching the problem from a “we limit this, therefore we should also limit that” point of view. At the very least, you consider pre-existing regulation as justification for regulating more. My perspective is the exact opposite - I look at things and think “should we limit this, really?” in order to arrive at the bare minimum of regulation required for a functioning society. More freedom, not less, is almost always my angle - I don’t look for excuses to regulate, I look for the opposite, reasons to deregulate.

The way it translates to gun control, and this is controversial, is to legalise and deregulate most street drugs, as well as prostitution and gambling. That will reduce “mass shootings” significantly as illegal gambling, prostitution and drugs are primary sources of income for organised criminals. Legal drugs mean no pushers - current drug offenders would have a path to go clean, their illegal activities would suddenly become a legitimate business model, sans the violence. Prostitutes wouldn’t require pimps so much as body guards only, and when operating in the open, they would be able to take advantage of basic healthcare coverage, various screenings and social security, making the trade safer for everybody. Legal gambling outside of designated areas like casinos would no doubt lead to less people at the bottom of lakes for unsecured gambling debt with unreasonable interest as they too would be regulated, like any other financial institution. Top it all off with a sudden and immense influx of tax revenue from brand-new (not really) emerging markets and you have a recipe for an overnight economic boom. Just legalising weed alone created an entire weed industry, and it happened so quickly that many of those companies have gone public and are in the stock market. “Cannabis stocks” are a very lucrative trend in investment right now, and it’s only been a few years.

Regulation of vices has done nothing besides fueling organised crime - America knows this because it’s gone through prohibition which gave rise to some of the world’s most famous gangsters. This would also have other benefits as those trades, when illegal, lead to human trafficking and drug smuggling. By making those activities legal you are actively reducing crime in other areas, and increasing border security. Overregulating weapons would only lead to weapons smuggling - plenty of them on the continent, and the border has ample holes for anything to fit through it. That’s the actual sensible answer if all you care about is a smaller number next to “mass shootings” on a graph - the occasional school shooting won’t go away that easy, you’d need to address the depression epidemic among young men for that, but the lion’s share of “mass shootings” aren’t caused by that, they’re caused by organised crime. Then again, perhaps that too would be affected - I imagine legal access to “hookers and blow” can boost one’s mood quite significantly. The former certainly reduces sexual frustration for the customers, the latter can go either way - I don’t necessarily care because I’ve got my own body, others can be in charge of theirs, as long as they’re not hurting anyone.

Will Republicans support such a notion? Not a chance - fighting against vices is their modus operandi. Will the Democrats? Of course not - they’re too “clean” for that - they’re quite content with just legalising weed, and even that is done reluctantly. Me, I look to places like Amsterdam where most of this is legal, and what do I see? A relatively happy population, without the government breathing down their necks because they ingested something psychoactive, or they got a “massage” of an unapproved body part using another unapproved body part. Would this approach cause chaos? Yes, for about a month or two. People would be drunk with their new-found freedoms and would immediately abuse them. After a while however, things would become routine and everything would just move along, except in a less stressful manner. Let’s not pretend that people don’t do drugs as it is, or that Tinder isn’t filled to the brim with prostitutes, or that people don’t go in the red with their bookie. We’re only human, and the government doesn’t exist to change us into robots.

The reason why your DMV question doesn’t make much sense to me is that gun control is already in the picture - not everyone can own a gun, background checks exist, and guns are serialised. There’s very little you can do beyond that that wouldn’t infringe upon the right to bear arms. I disagree with the notion that “martial arts” are a replacement for a firearm - criminals have firearms, law abiding citizens should be on equal footing. Not only that, one needs weapons for tyranny or danger that’s far away, close by and at medium range. Nobody forces anyone to arm themselves, *you* can learn karate to your heart’s content. I watched Pulp Fiction, and the one thing I learned was that there’s no replacement for a “shitter gun”.


----------



## smf (Jun 5, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Untrue due to how plumbing works. Water pipes are grounded,


Aren't all internal water pipes plastic now?


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 5, 2022)

smf said:


> Aren't all internal water pipes plastic now?


No, they’re not. In the UK the water main is copper. All my indoor piping is copper, also - I consider it superior to PVC. Not entirely sure how it works in America, but as far as I know, metal pipes are still the norm. In fact, mix and matching piping makes this problem worse as you can end up with some piping that’s grounded and some that isn’t due to a PVC section in-between. Easy way to get a surprise shock if you haven’t checked it for faults. Not only that, water itself is a conductor - not a great one, but still. There’s a reason why GFCI’s are mandatory in bathrooms.

EDIT: Double-checked this, copper is indeed still the most common pipe material in plumbing in America, not just the UK.


----------



## smf (Jun 5, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> No, they’re not. In the UK the water main is copper. All my indoor piping is copper, also. Not entirely sure how it works in America, but as far as I know, metal pipes are still the norm. In fact, mix and matching piping makes this problem worse as you can end up with some piping that’s grounded and some that isn’t due to a PVC section in-between. Easy way to get a surprise shock if you haven’t checked it for faults. Not only that, water itself is a conductor - not a great one, but still. There’s a reason why GFCI’s are mandatory in bathrooms.


I meant new ones obviously. I wasn't saying someone visited your house and changed your pipes over in the night while you were sleeping.

I'm still kinda wondering what this has to do with the point you were making about banning shavers


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 5, 2022)

smf said:


> I meant new ones obviously. I wasn't saying someone visited your house and changed your pipes over in the night while you were sleeping.
> 
> I'm still kinda wondering what this has to do with the point you were making about banning faulty shavers


I’m sure you can figure out how someone could use this knowledge maliciously to kill, or cause accidental death, sometimes without even knowing about it.


----------



## smf (Jun 5, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I’m sure you can figure out how someone could use this knowledge maliciously to kill, or cause accidental death, sometimes without even knowing about it.


Knowledge of faulty installation/equipment, which doesn't meet building codes?

I'd say that kind of thing was probably banned already.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 5, 2022)

smf said:


> Knowledge of faulty installation/equipment, which doesn't meet building codes?
> 
> I'd say that kind of thing was probably banned already.


I doesn’t necessarily have to be faulty - current way below the tripping spec of a GFCI can kill, not to mention that there are circumstances in which a fault is not detected. Besides, I’m not sure if a fine has the capacity to resuscitate an electrocution victim. Your contention was, I quote, “hairdryer and shaver accidents only kill the operator, there is no malicious use possible”. Both of those points are incorrect. It can kill anyone in the apartment, and in many installations it can kill people in other apartments also. It doesn’t require a faulty installation, only a source of electricity from outside of the fault-interrupted circuit - not all breakers are behind a GFCI (that’d be silly), but all pipes are connected. There exists a malicious use - you can very easily use this knowledge to kill someone and make it appear like a complete accident. That’s why I disagreed with you.

In any case, an educational video. Be careful, kids - this is a mistake most people can only make once.


----------



## Creamu (Jun 6, 2022)

The government should require everyone to strip naked of their clothes and hand them to the government. The government will in turn pretend that everyone is dressed, and offer a police service that you can call, when somebody shows signs that he/she/they is aware that you have no clothes on, for this will be illegal. For every misconduct that is caused by all that nakedness, the police is trained to respond quickly. If the government cynically is aware of you being naked without telling you, you can vote in another system, that is not aware of your nakedness. Basically there will be a whole system you can fully trust around you being naked without anyone noticing.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 6, 2022)

Creamu said:


> The government should require everyone to strip naked of their clothes and…


Say no more. I’m switching - vote blue no matter who.


----------



## AleronIves (Jun 6, 2022)

You seem to have again posted about your general philosophy instead of refuting my points, so I can only conclude that we're approaching "agree to disagree" territory.



Foxi4 said:


> I was interested in what your response to it would’ve been.


My response is that it's a bad argument. I agree with you.



Foxi4 said:


> What schools of libertarianism do you refer to? I think you might be describing anarcho-capitalists, I’m a moderate minarchist myself.


I have only just begun a study of libertarian thought. I've been watching the Soho Forum debates on various topics, and one of the debaters asserted that US libertarianism encompasses a range of beliefs, from "anarchy is the ideal form of government" to "the government is a necessary evil that should have the narrowest scope possible". US Libertarians, as a political party, therefore spend most of their time debating which things are in and out of scope for government to handle.



Foxi4 said:


> Notice that you’re approaching the problem from a “we limit this, therefore we should also limit that” point of view. At the very least, you consider pre-existing regulation as justification for regulating more. My perspective is the exact opposite - I look at things and think “should we limit this, really?” in order to arrive at the bare minimum of regulation required for a functioning society.


I don't think that's quite right. I assess the risk vs utlity in order to determine whether regulation is warranted. I don't think we should regulate guns simply because we regulate cars. I just think that comparisons are useful when considering risk vs utility. We regulate cars. Are they dangerous enough to warrant regulation? Yes. Are guns more dangerous than cars? Yes. Is their utility high enough to override how dangerous they are? No. We should therefore regulate them.

Our disagreement stems from where we draw the line between individual liberty and public safety. You err on the side of liberty. I err on the side of public safety. That's fine, and it is also impossible for us to reach agreement. The question is then, "How many Americans agree with me, and how many agree with you?" If a large enough majority of Americans agrees with me, we should reduce gun rights and increase regulation. If a large enough majority of Americans agrees with you, we should not reduce gun rights and not increase regulation.

Since your side is the status quo in the US, my side carries the burden of proof to convince enough Americans that giving up their Second Amendment rights is worth it in terms of public safety. I have done my best to make my case, but since the American people aren't reading our debate, I don't know how many of them I would have persuaded.



Foxi4 said:


> The way it translates to gun control, and this is controversial, is to legalise and deregulate most street drugs, as well as prostitution and gambling.


Firstly, I agree that this is a controversial position in the US. Secondly, I agree with it. Drugs and gambling pose harm to the individual but not to public safety. If you want to ruin your body with drugs or waste all your money at the casino, you're not hurting anybody except yourself, and you should have the right to do that. I would argue that prostitution is not necessarily harmful at all. As long as all participants are consenting adults, there is no problem whatsoever. Prostitution is banned in most of the US due to excessive moralising, not because it's actually harmful. Americans' prudish views on sex are not the topic at hand, though.

I disagree that regulating guns will inevitably lead to an increase in crime. Banning guns would have that effect, because as we saw with prohibition and the war on drugs, banning something that people want will only drive them to get it in illegal ways. The same is true of marijuana; when states decided to legalise it, they didn't say, "We need to remove all restrictions on marijuana, or else we'll be fueling the illegal drug trade." They put some level of restrictions in place to promote responsible consumption, while also reducing the market for illegal marijuana.

Some states have had more success at finding the right balance than others. If the regulations are too restrictive, you allow the market for illegal transactions to remain. If the regulations are too lax, you make it too easy for irresponsible people to gain access. There is no single, absolute standard for how much regulation is too much or too little. You have to figure it out as you go along by keeping laws that work and repealing ones that don't. When it comes to marijuana, you could definitely argue that the correct amount of regulation is zero, because marijuana only poses a risk to you and not to public safety; however, we do regulate alchohol, and since the risk vs utility profiles of marijuana and alcohol are similar, I can accept some regulation of marijuana. The alternative would be to say, "Marijuana should be completely unregulated, and so should alcohol," and I am not currently prepared to make that assertion, because I don't know enough about the issue.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 6, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> You seem to have again posted about your general philosophy instead of refuting my points, so I can only conclude that we're approaching "agree to disagree" territory.
> 
> My response is that it's a bad argument. I agree with you.
> 
> ...


I was under the impression that I’ve addressed all your points, albeit somewhat between the lines. If I missed anything relevant, can you shoot me (ha!) with some bulletpoints? Let’s assume from the start that getting rid of the second amendment is a non-starter position as it is fundamental and foundational for the republic, not just in my mind but in the minds of many Americans (120 guns per 100 citizens, remember?), and reaching a 2/3rds consensus between states required to repeal or amend it is an impossibility. What other measures would you implement that don’t infringe upon this right, if any?


----------



## AleronIves (Jun 6, 2022)

Wow, clearly I have failed to clarify my position.



Foxi4 said:


> Let’s assume from the start that getting rid of the second amendment is a non-starter position as it is fundamental and foundational for the republic


I cannot do this, because this is the opposite of my position. The Second Amendment is not fundamental, it is not foundational, it is not necessary, and it causes more harm than good. It must be repealed.



Foxi4 said:


> tracing a 2/3rds consensus between states required to repeal or amend it is an impossibility.


I agree that my position cannot be implemented, because it is a political impossibility. I am arguing for what I believe is the right thing to do, not the practical or realistic thing to do.



Foxi4 said:


> What other measures would you implement that don’t infringe upon this right, if any?


I cannot think of any. Gun control is unconstitutional, so we cannot implement it without violating the Constitution. My solution is to change the Constitution, which isn't actually going to happen. A high rate of mass shootings/domestic violence is an inevitable side effect of the right to keep and bear arms. Unless enough Americans agree with me that we should give up this right in order to improve public safety, nothing will change. Europe has done this, and I think Europeans made the right choice.


----------



## KennyAtom (Jun 6, 2022)

"IF YOU DON'T BAN GUNS, YOU HATE CHILDREN AND WISH THEM ALL DEAD!"
"why is every pro-gun person ignoring me?????"
these two statements go hand in hand. if you want people to listen, don't spout ignorant shit.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 6, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> I cannot do this, because this is the opposite of my position. The Second Amendment is not fundamental, it is not foundational, it is not necessary, and it causes more harm than good. It must be repealed.


In that case we have indeed reached a point of fundamental disagreement, and we even managed to boil it down to one paragraph.  There is nothing you can say that will convince me that the right to bear arms, ones that match (in relative terms) the arms of the state, so as to empower the population to defend itself from threats both foreign and domestic, is not a prerequisite for a free society governed by consent. The fact that most countries restricted or removed that right from the equation entirely is a modern tragedy, regardless of any recorded “benefits”. The loss in liberty is too great. We can only engage on a level that doesn’t restrict the exercise of this right entirely, but rather adequately tests competence, if you’re clinging to the DMV comparison. I don’t think that would have an effect on crazy people because they’re crazy. There’s a myriad of other things that can be done without removing lawful gun ownership from the equation, much like regulation of driving doesn’t remove civilian vehicles while restricting access of the incompetent. That’s the only happy medium - thoroughly unsatisfying to both sides, but optimal.


----------



## AleronIves (Jun 6, 2022)

I thought that was your position, but you kept talking past my points instead of trying to refute them, so I thought I was missing something. Instead, you consider all of my points invalid, because you think Second Amendment rights trump everything else, whereas I do not. Huzzah! We finally clarified each other's positions.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 6, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> I thought that was your position, but you kept talking past my points instead of trying to refute them, so I thought I was missing something. Instead, you consider all of my points invalid, because you think Second Amendment rights trump everything else, whereas I do not. Huzzah! We finally clarified each other's positions.


It doesn’t trump “everything”, it trumps legislation in principle because it’s a right. There are circumstances in which the exercise of rights can be restricted - prisons exist, as does due process. You should have access to just about everything on the market, not just arms, until you give society a reason to restrict your rights. Freedom is not contingent on the government’s whims.


----------



## AleronIves (Jun 6, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> "IF YOU DON'T BAN GUNS, YOU HATE CHILDREN AND WISH THEM ALL DEAD!"
> "why is every pro-gun person ignoring me?????"
> these two statements go hand in hand. if you want people to listen, don't spout ignorant shit.


Although the phrasing of the question is loaded and unfair, it's not entirely wrong. You judge that the right to keep and bear arms is more important than the lives of children killed in mass shootings, and therefore nothing that infringes upon this right should be done to stop children from dying in mass shootings. Only actions like fortifying schools against mass shootings are acceptable, since they don't infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms. That is a principled stance to take, but you must be willing to admit that this is your position if you want people to take you seriously, too.


----------



## KennyAtom (Jun 6, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Say no more. I’m switching - vote blue no matter who.


you're not thinking about this

ugly people will be naked too.


AleronIves said:


> Although the phrasing of the question is loaded and unfair, it's not entirely wrong. You judge that the right to keep and bear arms is more important than the lives of children killed in mass shootings, and therefore nothing that infringes upon this right should be done to stop children from dying in mass shootings. Only actions like fortifying schools against mass shootings are acceptable, since they don't infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms. That is a principled stance to take, but you must be willing to admit that this is your position if you want people to take you seriously, too.


Look, I don't want kids to die, but I also don't want rights to be infringed.


----------



## AleronIves (Jun 6, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> Look, I don't want kids to die, but I also don't want rights to be infringed.


I never said otherwise. You do, however, consider their deaths an acceptable loss so that you can keep your Second Amendment rights. You're not willing to accept any reduction in your Second Amendment rights, even if it would result in fewer children dying in mass shootings. That's fine. You just have to be willing to admit it.


----------



## tabzer (Jun 6, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> You judge that the right to keep and bear arms is more important than the lives of children killed in mass shootings



Without the 2A, Japan would have invaded America and you may not have had any children to protect from mass shootings.

Even getting rid of 2A doesn't bring lives back.  So it can be said that removing 2A is more important than the lives of children killed in mass shootings.


----------



## KennyAtom (Jun 6, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> I never said otherwise. You do, however, consider their deaths an acceptable loss so that you can keep your Second Amendment rights. You're not willing to accept any reduction in your Second Amendment rights, even if it would result in fewer children dying in mass shootings. That's fine. You just have to be willing to admit it.


i'm fine with background checks, those help save lives.

that's technically a reduction, as some people cannot get guns anymore.


----------



## AleronIves (Jun 6, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> i'm fine with background checks, those help save lives.


Whoa, common ground! Imagine that! When we discuss our views in an open and nonjudgemental manner, sometimes we find areas of agreement that have the potential to make everyone's lives better.  If only politicians would learn from our example.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 6, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> I never said otherwise. You do, however, consider their deaths an acceptable loss so that you can keep your Second Amendment rights. You're not willing to accept any reduction in your Second Amendment rights, even if it would result in fewer children dying in mass shootings. That's fine. You just have to be willing to admit it.


I think there’s some fundamental misunderstanding here. Are you under the impression that restricting access to firearms to potentially dangerous individuals would necessarily require a reduction of second amendment rights? My position is absolutist, but that’s not the national consensus. Access to firearms is already restricted for felons. Various forms of background checks and registration exist. Some of those systems could be tightened up, it wouldn’t necessarily infringe upon the right any more than it’s already infringed upon, it’d just refine effectiveness. I don’t quite understand why your default position is to remove the right entirely, it doesn’t make much sense to me.


KennyAtom said:


> you're not thinking about this
> 
> ugly people will be naked too.


The hardest choices require the strongest wills. I’ll have to use my eyelids more often.


----------



## AleronIves (Jun 6, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I think there’s some fundamental misunderstanding here. Are you under the impression that restricting access to firearms to potentially dangerous individuals would necessarily require a reduction of second amendment rights? My position is absolutist, but that’s not the national consensus.


"The national consensus" sounds like an ad populum fallacy to me. It doesn't matter whether lots of people think it's fine to violate Constitutional rights. What matters is whether the rights are being violated or not.

I came into this discussion with the belief that we could have gun control without violating SA rights. Your arguments have largely convinced me that this is not so. As you said, "shall not be infringed" is very clear, and people who say that gun control can be consistent with the SA, including myself before posting in this thread, are merely deluding ourselves with a logically inconsistent position. Much as the SCOTUS created a right to abortion out of thin air by pretending the Constitution says what they wanted it to say, we're pretending that the SA says what we want it to say, so that we can reconcile the notion of gun control with a Constitution that says the government shall not impose gun control.

Congratulations. Some of your libertarian thought rubbed off on me. 



Foxi4 said:


> Access to firearms is already restricted for felons. Various forms of background checks and registration exist. Some of those systems could be tightened up, it wouldn’t necessarily infringe upon the right any more than it’s already infringed upon, it’d just refine effectiveness.


Logical consistency is important. I don't want to create another Roe vs Wade situation of, "What we're doing is unconstitutional, but it's getting the desired result, so it's fine!" No, it's not fine. Undermining the Constitution to get a desired result is bad. It doesn't matter what the desired result is or who is trying to achieve that desired result.



Foxi4 said:


> I don’t quite understand why your default position is to remove the right entirely, it doesn’t make much sense to me.


I cannot see a constitutional way to impose gun control under the Constitution as it is currently written. The only logically consistent solution I can see is to utilise the mechanism the framers created for updating the Constitution, because without the SA, all the arguments of, "You can't do x gun control measure, because you're violating my SA rights!" go away. "Well, the SA doesn't exist anymore. You don't have that right anymore, so... yes I can."

This is *not* the same thing as saying that all guns should be banned. We regulate cars, and yet nearly everybody has them. Just because something is not a right does not prevent it from being widespread. I'm just tired of sensible gun control measures being blocked because they violate the SA. The only direct way to resolve this conflict without turning a blind eye to the Constitution is to fix the Constitution. Without the SA for people to fall back on, many sensible gun control measures can be implemented, and the courts can no longer block them for being unconstitutional.

Yes, it would be easier to embrace the Democratic position that says we should ignore the SA and implement gun control anyway. I'm arguing from a position of moral principle and logical consistency, not the most expedient way to get my desired result. That's how we got Roe vs Wade, and it was the wrong way to do it. I'm pretty sure we agree on that.

***

All that being said, I would also support an amendment that clarifies the SA, instead of repealing it. It might be something along the lines of, "The right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited and may be curtailed using methods x, y, and z, in order to promote a better balance between personal liberty and public safety." I do not know enough about guns to say what measures x, y, and z should be, so it's easier for me to argue for repeal and leave the details of how gun control would work for a later debate.

For the sake of argument, can you envision any constitutional amendment that would allow a reasonable compromise between our positions?


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 6, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> "The national consensus" sounds like an ad populum fallacy to me. It doesn't matter whether lots of people think it's fine to violate Constitutional rights. What matters is whether the rights are being violated or not.
> 
> I came into this discussion with the belief that we could have gun control without violating SA rights. Your arguments have largely convinced me that this is not so. As you said, "shall not be infringed" is very clear, and people who say that gun control can be consistent with the SA, including myself before posting in this thread, are merely deluding ourselves with a logically inconsistent position. Much as the SCOTUS created a right to abortion out of thin air by pretending the Constitution says what they wanted it to say, we're pretending that the SA says what we want it to say, so that we can reconcile the notion of gun control with a Constitution that says the government shall not impose gun control.
> 
> ...


I don’t generally like the subject of amending the constitution - the bill of rights is pretty all-encompassing. If anything, things got more complicated once the document started expanding and getting re-interpreted by subsequent SC’s. I’d have to ponder on this chestnut.


----------



## AleronIves (Jun 6, 2022)

I eagerly await your reply. Good debate is fun and intellectually stimulating. 

I only bring up the subject of constitutional amendments because it is the only logically consistent way I can see to achieve my goal. If we take amendments off the table, the one and only logically consistent position that respects the Constitution becomes: "Gun control is a violation of the Second Amendment, so we can't do it."

This errs too much on the side of personal liberty for my taste. I think public safety is important, and I am willing to give up some rights in order to achieve that goal. The question is whether there is any reasonable compromise that would respect the right to keep and bear arms while also preventing at least some bad people from getting guns.

This is easy to do with cars, because we don't have a Constitutional right to drive a car. As such, the government can impose reasonable restrictions on who is allowed to drive a car, and although responsible, law-abiding citizens are inconvenienced by having to jump through some hoops in order to get a driver's license, public safety is increased with a minimal curtailment of personal liberty, and almost everybody still ends up with the ability to drive a car.

I'd like to think that such a balance could be struck with gun ownership, but I don't know what a new amendment should say in order to strike the right balance between personal liberty and public safety. I only know that I don't want to violate the Constitution as it is currently written just to get a desired outcome. That option should never be on the table.


----------



## brickmii82 (Jun 6, 2022)

So like, instead of banning guns from people, just like, ban kids from school. Problem solved.


----------



## tabzer (Jun 6, 2022)

Or just stop mass shooter from doing mass shooting.


----------



## KennyAtom (Jun 6, 2022)

make the kids do zoom for school.

schools are already like prisons, with the forcing the kids to go to school and forcing them to stand in lines just like prisoners and with the stricter than strict rules, so at least let them stay home, do school from home, and boom, they won't get shot. Easy solution.


----------



## Olmectron (Jun 6, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> make the kids do zoom for school.
> 
> schools are already like prisons, with the forcing the kids to go to school and forcing them to stand in lines just like prisoners and with the stricter than strict rules, so at least let them stay home, do school from home, and boom, they won't get shot. Easy solution.


Why not make the gun owners do life from zoom? 

Want a semi-automatic killing gun? Alright, but you shouldn't leave your house anymore.


----------



## KennyAtom (Jun 6, 2022)

Olmectron said:


> Why not make the gun owners do life from zoom?
> 
> Want a semi-automatic killing gun? Alright, but you shouldn't leave your house anymore.


Because you don't have to go to school in-person, you have to go to life in-person otherwise you cannot live a life virtually unless we're living in the matrex or whatever it's called.


----------



## Olmectron (Jun 6, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> Because you don't have to go to school in-person, you have to go to life in-person otherwise you cannot live a life virtually unless we're living in the matrex or whatever it's called.


r/whoosh


----------



## KennyAtom (Jun 6, 2022)

Olmectron said:


> r/whoosh


and you're a redditor.

opinion discarded.


----------



## Olmectron (Jun 6, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> and you're a redditor.
> 
> opinion discarded.


It's still whoosh.


----------



## KennyAtom (Jun 6, 2022)

Olmectron said:


> It's still whoosh.


and you're still a redditor.


----------



## smf (Jun 6, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> There exists a malicious use - you can very easily use this knowledge to kill someone and make it appear like a complete accident. That’s why I disagreed with you.



Riiiiiggggghhhtttt, so because murder exists then guns should not be banned.

All drugs should be legalized too as well, because you can get high on exercise???


----------



## smf (Jun 6, 2022)

Olmectron said:


> Why not make the gun owners do life from zoom?
> 
> Want a semi-automatic killing gun? Alright, but you shouldn't leave your house anymore.


What about, you can have all the guns you want but you get automatically entered into the purge?

If you shoot anyone who is unarmed, then it's an automatic death penalty. Even if you are white, they are black & you are a police officer.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 6, 2022)

smf said:


> Riiiiiggggghhhtttt, so because murder exists then guns should not be banned.
> 
> All drugs should be legalized too as well, because you can get high on exercise???


Guns should be legal in general, it has nothing to do with the risk of electrocution.

I would argue that most drugs should be legal, yes. Can’t really think of many that shouldn’t be available on the open market. Perhaps Krokodil, since it makes your flesh melt off your body, but then again, it’s your body, so what do I care?

You had an objection, I’ve addressed your objection. Not much more to it.



AleronIves said:


> I eagerly await your reply. Good debate is fun and intellectually stimulating.
> 
> I only bring up the subject of constitutional amendments because it is the only logically consistent way I can see to achieve my goal. If we take amendments off the table, the one and only logically consistent position that respects the Constitution becomes: "Gun control is a violation of the Second Amendment, so we can't do it."
> 
> ...


In all honesty, I’d probably approach this problem from the angle of codifying when constitutional rights cease to apply, which to me has always been at the point of committing a crime. The law protects law abiding citizens. Then again, that would put civil disobedience at jeopardy, and unjust law must necessarily be challenged. There’s no good way out of this pickle, and the root of the problem here is that I consider the right to bear arms quintessential whereas you don’t. It’s easy for you to imagine certain weapons or certain scenarios wherein given weapons would be banned or restricted (not all, as you say, but still), that’s much more difficult to me.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 6, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> make the kids do zoom for school.
> 
> schools are already like prisons, with the forcing the kids to go to school and forcing them to stand in lines just like prisoners and with the stricter than strict rules, so at least let them stay home, do school from home, and boom, they won't get shot. Easy solution.


Schools, for all their faults, educate children to being socialised, making them all the more essential.


Foxi4 said:


> The law protects law abiding citizens. Then again, that would put civil disobedience at jeopardy, and unjust law must necessarily be challenged.


Civil disobedience, in line with its own nature, isn't codified in any statute book or jurisprudence. So civil disobedience is always "risky" behaviour. Challenging unjust laws is really difficult without a constitution and a constitutional court.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 6, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Civil disobedience, in line with its own nature, isn't codified in any statute book or jurisprudence. So civil disobedience is always "risky" behaviour. Challenging unjust laws is really difficult without a constitution and a constitutional court.


Precisely the reason why the constitution is necessary, I agree. The constitution guarantees the right to protest for redress of grievances, peacefully. With that being said, peaceful protest doesn’t necessarily work if the government becomes tyrannical - that’s the point when the second backs the first up. I fully understand this is controversial, but there will never be a Times Square Massacre akin to Tiananmen in part because American citizens are armed and “treading” on them is risky. That’s just one out of many reasons why the right to bear arms must be protected.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 6, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I fully understand this is controversial, but there will never be a Times Square Massacre akin to Tiananmen in part because American citizens are armed and “treading” on them is risky. That’s just one out of many reasons why the right to bear arms must be protected.


Or maybe because police forces in the West would have qualms in trampling citizens with tanks?


----------



## ZeroT21 (Jun 6, 2022)

If even american school kids can easily be armed to the teeth with automatics, I can see why 'em muricans can be so gungho bout guns


----------



## Creamu (Jun 6, 2022)

Another thought I had. If it is possible to develope such a technology the goverment should place devices in the bodies of humans that can paralyse or even kill them. Weapons are dangerous and should be banned. But why stop there? In principle every human has the potential to cause serious harm even without weaponary. I think when weapons are banned we will still see alot of harm being done. Acid attacks, burtal beatings, attacks with common objects. The state should have the power to wipe out the entire population with the push of a button.

I developed this thought as a potential direction certain anti gun arguments can take if their principle gets applied consistently.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 6, 2022)

Creamu said:


> Another thought I had. If it is possible to develope such a technology the goverment should place devices in the bodies of humans that can paralyse or even kill them. Weapons are dangerous and should be banned. But why stop there? In principle every human has the potential to cause serious harm even without weaponary. I think when weapons are banned we will still see alot of harm being done. Acid attacks, burtal beatings, attacks with common objects. The state should have the power to wipe out the entire population with the push of a button.
> 
> I developed this thought as a potential direction certain anti gun arguments can take if their principle gets applied consistently.


You've watched X-men 2 way too many times.


----------



## Creamu (Jun 6, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> You've watched X-men 2 way too many times.


So the freaks in hollywood are illustrating that already. I can't say I'm suprised.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 6, 2022)

Creamu said:


> So the freaks in hollywood are illustrating that already. I can't say I'm suprised.


Yeah and it required a supercomputer and the most powerful telepath in existence to work. No one is in danger of your crackpot idea anytime soon.


----------



## Creamu (Jun 6, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Yeah and it required a supercomputer


That is interesting, in the The Matrix you have the Architect (Vulcan) maybe there is a connection. What is the name of that computer?


Dark_Ansem said:


> and the most powerful telepath in existence to work.


What is the name of that telepath?


Dark_Ansem said:


> No one is in danger of your crackpot idea anytime soon.


Yes, a brighter future will come.

The computer is Cerebro?

Telepaths seem to be common in that universe.
https://x-men.fandom.com/wiki/Category:Telepaths

Interstingly an Adonis figure is connected to Cerebro:


> After Nightcrawler was injured in battle and lost, Shadowcat re-calibrated Cerebro, for non-telepaths to use, to search for Nightcrawler and Phoenix. [dying and rising god, Adonis]



Reading up on him, he seems to be pretty much the same as the Architect in The Matrix. I will analyse this in the future in my dedicated thread. What the american media apparatus is putting out is always quite revealing.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 6, 2022)

Creamu said:


> The computer is Cerebro?


precisely. So don't worry, Omega-level mutants aren't real. Sadly.


----------



## Creamu (Jun 6, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> precisely. So don't worry, Omega-level mutants aren't real. Sadly.


Thanks, do you mind giving my the telepaths name?


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 6, 2022)

Creamu said:


> Thanks, do you mind giving my the telepaths name?


It's Professor Charles Xavier


----------



## Creamu (Jun 6, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> It's Professor Charles Xavier


Thank you very much! 

Back to the topic of this thread.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 6, 2022)

So I'm a little confused. Where does it state that gun control infringes 2nd Amendment rights?


----------



## Olmectron (Jun 6, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> So I'm a little confused. Where does it state that gun control infringes 2nd Amendment rights?


Nowhere.

https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-2/

I now the amendments are taken as are because of history and whatever, but people should have elaborated on them so people doesn't make up stupid interpretations about what they mean, because they are so short sometimes.

I'm not from the USA, and I just noticed. There 27 Amendments, yet nothing said in them about children or schools. It's not like Schools didn't exist back then. If only there was an Amendment about "Not killing children at schools with Arms" maybe some obtuse people would understand.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 6, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Or maybe because police forces in the West would have qualms in trampling citizens with tanks?


Would they? I don’t know about that - they didn’t seem to have any issues with deploying armored vehicles, tear gas and “less lethal” firearms before, not to mention all the beat downs, I don’t see why things couldn’t get worse when the rubber really meets the road. Isn’t it you guys who are constantly complaining about police brutality and senseless killings of civilians? I thought that was your line, but now I’m lost.



Olmectron said:


> Nowhere.
> 
> https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-2/
> 
> ...


It’s a good thing that we have Federalist Papers and the Anti-federalist Papers, as well as a wealth of personal correspondence from the time period to figure out what they meant specifically. Of course all that gets ignored in favour of court precedent, so inaccurate or downright wrong interpretations get perpetuated unless they’re challenged.



ZeroT21 said:


> If even american school kids can easily be armed to the teeth with automatics, I can see why 'em muricans can be so gungho bout guns


They can’t. Obtaining an automatic weapon and the relevant certification is incredibly difficult in most of the U.S. - you can’t even buy them in most states. I believe only 13 still permit sale of automatic weapons, but they’re all NFA items. The checks involved are extremely extensive.


----------



## Creamu (Jun 6, 2022)

Another idea I had is the following.

We could give all the power and weaponary to a small minority of the increasingly divided population of american, in hopes that they will rule neutrally. This way it can be assured that the population groups of america dont develope antagonistic tendencies towards other segments. If power is widely distributed it could be that local interests could form and force their will in a scenario of an increasingly collapsing america, that looses will/power to enact the greater american project. Only a small minority could be divorced from all those interests and concentrate the willpower to hold america together by force if need be. Basically a small minority should have the power and weaponary to force the american project  if necessary.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 6, 2022)

Olmectron said:


> Nowhere.
> 
> https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-2/
> 
> I now the amendments are taken as are because of history and whatever, but people should have elaborated on them so people doesn't make up stupid interpretations about what they mean, because they are so short sometimes.



I doubt they could have foreseen what came to be the current state of affairs, and even if they could have, elaborate all they want there's no guarantee their words wouldn't be purposely misconstrued in the mouths of biased derelicts.



Olmectron said:


> I'm not from the USA, and I just noticed. There 27 Amendments, yet nothing said in them about children or schools. It's not like Schools didn't exist back then. If only there was an Amendment about "Not killing children at schools with Arms" maybe some obtuse people would understand.



Much like today's society. As long as people have their property, they don't care about what happens to everyone else. But God forbid someone tries to inconvenience them in even the most slightest of ways. It's cute to see the degradation of human society with every "You can't take my rights" from pro gunners while they say "You don't deserve your rights" (abortion rights, gay rights, religious rights,  etc) in the same breath.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 6, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> I doubt they could have foreseen what came to be the current state of affairs, and even if they could have, elaborate all they want there's no guarantee their words wouldn't be purposely misconstrued in the mouths of biased derelicts.


They couldn’t foresee what? Internal conflict and division? The U.S. went through a war of independence in 1775 and a civil war less than a century later, in 1861, not to mention a myriad of smaller conflicts in-between - what’d you mean they couldn’t foresee it? They were perfectly aware that not everyone was on the same page, that’s why they opted for a country structure divided into mostly self-governing states and a fairly minimal federal government. The U.S. was founded in anything but peaceful times - in fact, it was founded on civil disobedience against King George. The country was created by armed colonists rebelling against a tyrannical government imposing unjust law.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 6, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> They couldn’t foresee what? Internal conflict and division? The U.S. went through a war of independence in 1775 and a civil war less than a century later, in 1861, not to mention a myriad of smaller conflicts in-between - what’d you mean they couldn’t foresee it? They were perfectly aware that not everyone was on the same page, that’s why they opted for a country structure divided into mostly self-governing states and a fairly minimal federal government. The U.S. was founded in anything but peaceful times - in fact, it was founded on civil disobedience against King George. The country was created by armed colonists rebelling against a tyrannical government imposing unjust law.


No, they couldn't foresee how their actions would influence the shit show of a country we have today. Let's take a popular argument "Well the founding fathers made that amendment when everyone had black powder rifles (or whatever) ". Regardless of the nuance of the statement, this is objectively true even to this day. I'm almost certain that if the founding fathers knew that firearm and war based technology would rise to the state it's in as quickly as it has, they probably would've added some more clauses restricting what the government is allowed to use, at least in terms of its own citizens (granted we do currently have the Geneva Convention, but that's more of a punishing document rather than something preventative). There's no way they were sitting down writing this thinking about the day when governments have nuclear bombs and advanced strategic tactics and bio-chemical agents and technological based attacks on the frequent and ready. No, I don't see this detail limiting the idea of 2A rights, but you can't sit there and say that the tumultuous times of that era perfectly mimic what's going on today, especially in the sense that, every time someone exercises they're 2A rights (i.e. riots), they get put down and turned into a gaslighted target.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 6, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> No, they couldn't foresee how their actions would influence the shit show of a country we have today. Let's take a popular argument "Well the founding fathers made that amendment when everyone had black powder rifles (or whatever) ". Regardless of the nuance of the statement, this is objectively true even to this day. I'm almost certain that if the founding fathers knew that firearm and war based technology would rise to the state it's in as quickly as it has, they probably would've added some more clauses restricting what the government is allowed to use, at least in terms of its own citizens (granted we do currently have the Geneva Convention, but that's more of a punishing document rather than something preventative). There's no way they were sitting down writing this thinking about the day when governments have nuclear bombs and advanced strategic tactics and bio-chemical agents and technological based attacks on the frequent and ready. No, I don't see this detail limiting the idea of 2A rights, but you can't sit there and say that the tumultuous times of that era perfectly mimic what's going on today, especially in the sense that, every time someone exercises they're 2A rights (i.e. riots), they get put down and turned into a gaslighted target.


The founding fathers were perfectly aware of rapid progress. In fact, the industrial revolution (1760-1840 give or take) was a period of the fastest technological progress and innovation in human history. Hand production was quickly phased out. Steam power and water power allowed for the creation of mechanised factories. The introduction of the milling machine and the lathe made working with metal faster and more precise, enabling designers to make more complex parts. This is relevant, because the U.S. Department of War quickly saw the potential of these new inventions and developed precise metal machining techniques for the purposes of manufacturing interchangeable firearms parts, in association with Springfield and Harpers Ferry Armories. All of this combined led to the establishment of what we now call the American system of manufacturing, which was quickly mimicked all around the world.

The Lewis and Clarke Expedition of 1804 was famously armed with a Girandoni Air Rifle, loaded with a magazine of 20 steel balls and strong enough to rival an equivalent musket (500 feet per second muzzle velocity). By the time Madison, the last of the founding fathers, died in 1836, Samuel Colt had already developed and mass-produced American-made revolvers with the help of modern manufacturing techniques above - he was one of the first to deploy Industrial age methods in arms manufacturing. By 1840, American began using pin-fire cartridges and by 1850 the first shotguns became common. Things only developed more rapidly since, with the Volcanic pistol and rifle in 1855, both using tubular magazines, which were followed shortly by weapons using stripper clips and box magazines, as well as smokeless powders. The Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791 and within a little over a century Americans were shooting Browning Automatic Rifles during WWI. The idea that the founders couldn’t imagine this trajectory is silly - they saw the seeds of the Industrial Age sprout.

@Xzi mentioned that he owns a 1911 pistol - guess when Browning came up with that one? In 1911, over a hundred years ago. If anything, weapons development is pretty slow nowadays - it’s more about optimisation than anything else. The most groundbreaking innovations were already developed in the 19th and 20th centuries. Could they imagine a nuke? I don’t know, but they didn’t have any issues with civilians owning straight up artillery. This weird idea that people in early America were shooting firearms only narrowly better than throwing stones is just patently untrue, and the founders witnessed just how rapid arms development was. They wouldn’t have changed a thing.

Tl;dr Play some Red Dead Redemption 2 or something. It takes place in 1899, 108 years after the Bill of Rights was signed. The Wild West was pretty wild, and the game happens to depict the tail end of that era.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 6, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> The founding fathers were perfectly aware of rapid progress. In fact, the industrial revolution (1760-1840 give or take) was a period of the fastest technological progress and innovation in human history. Hand production was quickly phased out. Steam power and water power allowed for the creation of mechanised factories. The introduction of the milling machine and the lathe made working with metal faster and more precise, enabling designers to make more complex parts. This is relevant, because the U.S. Department of War quickly saw the potential of these new inventions and developed precise metal machining techniques for the purposes of manufacturing interchangeable firearms parts, in association with Springfield and Harpers Ferry Armories. All of this combined led to the establishment of what we now call the American system of manufacturing, which was quickly mimicked all around the world.
> 
> The Lewis and Clarke Expedition of 1804 was famously armed with a Girandoni Air Rifle, loaded with a magazine of 20 steel balls and strong enough to rival an equivalent musket (500 feet per second muzzle velocity). By the time Madison, the last of the founding fathers, died in 1836, Samuel Colt had already developed and mass-produced American-made revolvers with the help of modern manufacturing techniques above - he was one of the first to deploy Industrial age methods in arms manufacturing. By 1840, American began using pin-fire cartridges and by 1850 the first shotguns became common. Things only developed more rapidly since, with the Volcanic pistol and rifle in 1855, both using tubular magazines, which were followed shortly by weapons using stripper clips and box magazines, as well as smokeless powders. The Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791 and within a little over a century Americans were shooting Browning Automatic Rifles during WWI. The idea that the founders couldn’t imagine this trajectory is silly - they saw the seeds of the Industrial Age sprout.
> 
> ...


Good points, but you're still basing a lot of your assumptions on conjecture. While you've certainly pointed out that the founding fathers had some kind of insight to the future based on how society operated to that point, I still find it unlikely that they anticipated the culmination of their actions to what we see today. Even in 1911 when automatic weapons were the norm, that's still a century and half of time in between, compared to the next century when bombs capable of taking out entire cities were freely carried by plane halfway across the globe, a concept I know for a fact was not widely entertained in the early 1800's/ late 17's.

If your argument is that the founding fathers' writings concerning the 2A should be followed based on how the Federalist Papers should be inferred, how can you confidently argue that anyone's inference is more correct than another's? Their perspective at the time was to ensure that every American be armed in case of government tyranny because everyone had access to the same option of weapons; as the rate of weapon intensity rose, so did the gap between what the government utilized and what they allowed their citizenry to have, something I doubt the founding fathers had anticipated when creating the amendments.

The biggest argument stemming from this is going to be "Well according to the 2A if the government can own assault rifles and tanks then do should the people, so we can prepare to defend ourselves in case of government tyranny" which is fine. Let's then advocate for the wholesale of such weaponry as opposed to just whining about rights being taken away. However, I can't argue in good faith that when people are given these tools they're going to use them in good faith. If people were honestly that worried about rising up against a tyrannical government, as opposed to just crying about material possessions, why has Flint, Michigan suffered for so long? Why didn't more people come to defend Waco? Why do protests and riots get shut down so quickly?

I understand people wanting to be able to defend themselves, and I find no problem with that. I find issue when people are more distraught over the inane possibility of losing their materialistic possessions rather than lives of innocents they supposedly care for. Gun control does not infringe one's rights, and making guns easier to obtain for anyone does not equate that people will do the right thing when push comes to shove.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 6, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Good points, but you're still basing a lot of your assumptions on conjecture. While you've certainly pointed out that the founding fathers had some kind of insight to the future based on how society operated to that point, I still find it unlikely that they anticipated the culmination of their actions to what we see today. Even in 1911 when automatic weapons were the norm, that's still a century and half of time in between, compared to the next century when bombs capable of taking out entire cities were freely carried by plane halfway across the globe, a concept I know for a fact was not widely entertained in the early 1800's/ late 17's.
> 
> If your argument is that the founding fathers' writings concerning the 2A should be followed based on how the Federalist Papers should be inferred, how can you confidently argue that anyone's inference is more correct than another's? Their perspective at the time was to ensure that every American be armed in case of government tyranny because everyone had access to the same option of weapons; as the rate of weapon intensity rose, so did the gap between what the government utilized and what they allowed their citizenry to have, something I doubt the founding fathers had anticipated when creating the amendments.
> 
> ...


I’d argue that they had adequate insight - they lived in a world that was rapidly changing and had no reason to believe that this would change anytime soon. As for the second amendment, you’re missing the forest for the trees. It de facto functions as insurance against tyranny, but has many uses. The thing about rights is that you don’t get to decide how others exercise them. In fact, we operate knowing from the start that some people *will* misuse them. Take free speech, for instance. We value the idea that people cannot be silenced by the government. We often say that “freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom of consequences”, but that’s not really true - the government cannot imprison you for anything you say. Even in cases of libel, the suit isn’t so much about what was said, but rather about causing damages - that’s what people file suits for. This right is meant to protect journalism, peaceful protest, all sorts of things. Guess what else it protects? Hate speech - hate speech is free speech, regardless of who gets their feelings hurt. The second amendment isn’t much different - people de facto must have access to arms, for a number of reasons we’ve listed. We accept the possibility that this right might be misused - that’s why we have laws that describe what criminal conduct is. The possibility of misuse is priced in.


----------



## Olmectron (Jun 7, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I’d argue that they had adequate insight - they lived in a world that was rapidly changing and had no reason to believe that this would change anytime soon. As for the second amendment, you’re missing the forest for the trees. It de facto functions as insurance against tyranny, but has many uses. The thing about rights is that you don’t get to decide how others exercise them. In fact, we operate knowing from the start that some people *will* misuse them. Take free speech, for instance. We value the idea that people cannot be silenced by the government. We often say that “freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom of consequences”, but that’s not really true - the government cannot imprison you for anything you say. Even in cases of libel, the suit isn’t so much about what was said, but rather about causing damages - that’s what people file suits for. This right is meant to protect journalism, peaceful protest, all sorts of things. Guess what else it protects? Hate speech - hate speech is free speech, regardless of who gets their feelings hurt. The second amendment isn’t much different - people de facto must have access to arms, for a number of reasons we’ve listed. We accept the possibility that this right might be misused - that’s why we have laws that describe what criminal conduct is. The possibility of misuse is priced in.


Yeah. At this point everyone in the USA should get over school shootings and accept it's a caveat, or even a way, of life.

Basically. "You want guns? Alright. Here are the 100 children injured/death per year inside schools and the 3,500 children and teens injured/death outside schools because of guns".

https://everytownresearch.org/maps/gunfire-on-school-grounds/

https://wonder.cdc.gov/controller/saved/D76/D262F334

And that's the price all of USA must pay because of guns. No need to improve it after the fact, it's been already weighed in. Even the families of killed children should simply accept it and move on. *"You want protection against tyranny? Sure, just let your kid participate in a Russian roulette every day at school."*


----------



## tabzer (Jun 7, 2022)

Olmectron said:


> Yeah. At this point everyone in the USA should get over school shootings and accept it's a caveat, or even a way, of life.
> 
> Basically. "You want guns? Alright. Here are the 100 children injured/death per year inside schools and the 3,500 children and teens injured/death outside schools because of guns".
> 
> ...


I'd argue that school shootings and increase in gun violence is a symptom that a time for revolution is approaching.  The political and social dissatisfaction in the arrangement of society is always approaching the threshold for what is considered tyrannical.  People want to talk about founding fathers' intentions and awareness, consider the dystopia they might see of America today.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 7, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I’d argue that they had adequate insight - they lived in a world that was rapidly changing and had no reason to believe that this would change anytime soon. As for the second amendment, you’re missing the forest for the trees. It de facto functions as insurance against tyranny, but has many uses. The thing about rights is that you don’t get to decide how others exercise them. In fact, we operate knowing from the start that some people *will* misuse them. Take free speech, for instance. We value the idea that people cannot be silenced by the government. We often say that “freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom of consequences”, but that’s not really true - the government cannot imprison you for anything you say. Even in cases of libel, the suit isn’t so much about what was said, but rather about causing damages - that’s what people file suits for. This right is meant to protect journalism, peaceful protest, all sorts of things. Guess what else it protects? Hate speech - hate speech is free speech, regardless of who gets their feelings hurt. The second amendment isn’t much different - people de facto must have access to arms, for a number of reasons we’ve listed. We accept the possibility that this right might be misused - that’s why we have laws that describe what criminal conduct is. The possibility of misuse is priced in.



I don't mean to mince words but I wouldn't call the 2A "insurance". If the government comes to attack they're not going to care that you're exercising your 2A rights, and I have yet to see a case where the verdict falls in line with protecting 2A rights (though in not opposed to seeing one), in the case of using one's guns to fight back government tyranny. 

The problem with comparing it to the first amendment is that hate speech doesn't immediately kill, though the case could be argued that it can lead to killing, whether it's homicide or suicide. I can't simply walk down the street immediately killing people with words, but the same exact thing can be done with guns. Still not enough to take away one's rights, but at the end of the day I feel we all know what the argument really is: interpreting the amendment to understand whether gun control is infringement (its not) and how to enact preventative measures with current gun owners. Not meant as a restriction, but as a discouragement to want to shoot people whenever you have a problem, not just in the face of tyranny.


----------



## Olmectron (Jun 7, 2022)

tabzer said:


> I'd argue that school shootings and increase in gun violence is a symptom that a time for revolution is approaching.  The political and social dissatisfaction in the arrangement of society is always approaching the threshold for what is considered tyrannical.  People want to talk about founding fathers' intentions and awareness, consider the dystopia they might see of America today.


Given this, it should also be happening in a lot of other countries in the world where they are not happy about the government.

Why is only USA the country where this regularly happens? Are Russian citizens happy with Putin's government? Are Brazilian people happy with their security rates? Are Mexican people happy with their currently collapsing country?

I don't think any of those is happy, yet there are nearly zero SCHOOL shootings around those countries compared to USA.

And, come on. It's easy to get a gun in the black market in Mexico or Brazil, but still, not as many school shootings as USA. People dies here by being kidnapped and you never hear about them again, or in their houses at night, targeted by a criminal group. Not by shooting sprees by mentally damaged children and teens in McDonald's or schools.


----------



## tabzer (Jun 7, 2022)

Olmectron said:


> Given this, it should also be happening in a lot of other countries in the world where they are not happy about the government.
> 
> Why is only USA the country where this regularly happens? Are Russian citizens happy with Putin's government? Are Brazilian people happy with their security rates? Are Mexican people happy with their currently collapsing country?
> 
> ...



There are a myriad of reasons why the US, the global tyrant, would be the first and foremost to be experiencing this.  1, as we know, they have more guns available to the general public.  2, the other countries you have listed already stepped up gun control in ways that America has not.

My initial argument suggests that America is in a stronger position than other countries to face this scenario.  Trump, becoming president, might be almost as insane as school shootings.  Someone, in America, wants it to change badly.  Obviously, not everybody is on the same page.  News media and politicians want to focus on issues that divide the country.  Why?


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 7, 2022)

Olmectron said:


> Yeah. At this point everyone in the USA should get over school shootings and accept it's a caveat, or even a way, of life.
> 
> Basically. "You want guns? Alright. Here are the 100 children injured/death per year inside schools and the 3,500 children and teens injured/death outside schools because of guns".
> 
> ...


We’ve just discussed this kind of appeal to emotions and why it’s ineffective. You’re effectively telling me “think of the children”, the subtext being that if I’m unwilling to relinquish the constitutional right to bear arms, I’m a bad person. Two things can be true at once - you can care about the victims and also believe that this right is fundamental in a free society and must be defended. There’s a great number of things we can do to reduce the number of mass shootings without infringing upon constitutional rights or relinquishing any of them, and none of those things are going to be discussed by Congress because they’re not marketable. What’s marketable is to create a moral panic over “black and scary” rifles and dead children even though the majority of mass shootings are committed with handguns (by an enormous margin) and take place between rival gangs. Even if we set that obvious fact aside, the reason why mass shootings in schools take place now when they didn’t use to is the increased prevalence of depression and despair, driven in part by social media turning people’s brains into mush and mainstream media consistently chasing tragedies to cover, creating a false impression of the end of days. Good news doesn’t sell ads.


SyphenFreht said:


> I don't mean to mince words but I wouldn't call the 2A "insurance". If the government comes to attack they're not going to care that you're exercising your 2A rights, and I have yet to see a case where the verdict falls in line with protecting 2A rights (though in not opposed to seeing one), in the case of using one's guns to fight back government tyranny.
> 
> The problem with comparing it to the first amendment is that hate speech doesn't immediately kill, though the case could be argued that it can lead to killing, whether it's homicide or suicide. I can't simply walk down the street immediately killing people with words, but the same exact thing can be done with guns. Still not enough to take away one's rights, but at the end of the day I feel we all know what the argument really is: interpreting the amendment to understand whether gun control is infringement (its not) and how to enact preventative measures with current gun owners. Not meant as a restriction, but as a discouragement to want to shoot people whenever you have a problem, not just in the face of tyranny.


I’m glad that you agree hate speech is not a legitimate reason to limit a citizen’s rights. The 2A is absolutely insurance against tyranny, not just when exercised, but just by the virtue of its existence. You don’t tread too hard on people who are armed. The first thing every tyrannical government does is disarming civilians - a population that can’t fight back can be easily broken. Americans should never relinquish the right to bear their arms, should the need to use them arise.


----------



## Olmectron (Jun 7, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> We’ve just discussed this kind of appeal to emotions and why it’s ineffective. You’re effectively telling me “think of the children”, the subtext being that if I’m unwilling to relinquish the constitutional right to bear arms, I’m a bad person. Two things can be true at once - you can care about the victims and also believe that this right is fundamental in a free society and must be defended. There’s a great number of things we can do to reduce the number of mass shootings without infringing upon constitutional rights or relinquishing any of them, and none of those things are going to be discussed by Congress because they’re not marketable. What’s marketable is to create a moral panic over “black and scary” rifles and dead children even though the majority of mass shootings are committed with handguns (by an enormous margin) and take place between rival gangs. Even if we set that obvious fact aside, the reason why mass shootings in schools take place now when they didn’t use to is the increased prevalence of depression and despair, driven in part by social media turning people’s brains into mush and mainstream media consistently chasing tragedies to cover, creating a false impression of the end of days. Good news doesn’t sell ads.
> I’m glad that you agree hate speech is not a legitimate reason to limit a citizen’s rights. The 2A is absolutely insurance against tyranny, not just when exercised, but just by the virtue of its existence. You don’t tread too hard on people who are armed. The first thing every tyrannical government does is disarming civilians - a population that can’t fight back can be easily broken. Americans should never relinquish the right to bear their arms, should the need to use them arise.


Alright I guess.

I mean, just *"think of other people lifes"* would be what I would say, not to think of the children.

This is why we, as a society, have failed. We can't kind of diminish our own right (like applying those stricter gun controls everyone talks about in this thread) without feeling violated even when it would just take a bit more of burocracy to get a gun for our hunting hobbie.

Whatever. Just let people die because of guns. Let parents be afraid of their kids going to school. Let people be afraid of having a different skin color and going out to the streets for taking a breath because police know no other way to stop "bad looking" guys than using their guns.

Life is short. But yeah, let's us enjoy our precious guns while making life even shorter for some people.

I don't care anymore. I get off this thread.


----------



## tabzer (Jun 7, 2022)

I envision a future where everyone is self-aware, and accountable for their actions.  The people who want gun control, want people regulated, like livestock, in perpetuity.  

Insects are more self-aware.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 7, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Would they? I don’t know about that - they didn’t seem to have any issues with deploying armored vehicles, tear gas and “less lethal” firearms before, not to mention all the beat downs, I don’t see why things couldn’t get worse when the rubber really meets the road. Isn’t it you guys who are constantly complaining about police brutality and senseless killings of civilians? I thought that was your line, but now I’m lost.



Police seems to be able to perfectly restrain itself depending on skin colour of target.


----------



## smf (Jun 7, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Guns should be legal in general, it has nothing to do with the risk of electrocution.


In your opinion. Fortunately in the UK, your opinion is in the minority.



tabzer said:


> I envision a future where everyone is self-aware, and accountable for their actions.  The people who want gun control, want people regulated, like livestock, in perpetuity.
> 
> Insects are more self-aware.


Actually those who want gun control also want people to be more self aware, which would mean they wouldn't want to own guns. But until that happens, they want to control guns.

Ants are live stock. They have no concept of self at all.



Dark_Ansem said:


> Police seems to be able to perfectly restrain itself depending on skin colour of target.


Right, Police kill exactly the people they intend to kill.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 7, 2022)

smf said:


> In your opinion. Fortunately in the UK, your opinion is in the minority.


AR-15’s are legal in the UK, including semi-automatics as long as they’re chambered in .22LR, it’s not a magical forbidden weapon, since that’s what we’re talking about. As for the UK conveniently forgetting about their own Bill of Rights and sacrificing one of their rights, it’s very unfortunate, and explains a lot of the nonsense coming from Westminster. I hope that one day this can change, but I don’t think it will unless some kind of major conflict once again demonstrates the utility of an armed populace, which is a scenario best avoided.


Dark_Ansem said:


> Police seems to be able to perfectly restrain itself depending on skin colour of target.


The statistics don’t show that, as we’ve discussed some time ago. The only actual correlation that can be demonstrated is with the level of criminality in a given community. In fact, if you compare apples to apples, non-white suspects are less likely to be shot by police.


Olmectron said:


> Alright I guess.
> 
> I mean, just *"think of other people lifes"* would be what I would say, not to think of the children.
> 
> ...


Diminishing someone’s rights when they’re innocent of any wrongdoing is a violation, so feeling violated in such an instance is perfectly understandable.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 7, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> The statistics don’t show that, as we’ve discussed some time ago. The only actual correlation that can be demonstrated is with the level of criminality in a given community. In fact, if you compare apples to apples, non-white suspects are less likely to be shot by police.


And yet whenever there is a terror attack or a mass shooting, if the attacker is white they tend to capture him alive.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 7, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> And yet whenever there is a terror attack or a mass shooting, if the attacker is white they tend to capture him alive.


ITT: liberal complains about insufficient police brutality.


----------



## tabzer (Jun 7, 2022)

smf said:


> Actually those who want gun control also want people to be more self aware, which would mean they wouldn't want to own guns. But until that happens, they want to control guns.
> 
> Ants are live stock. They have no concept of self at all.



And the punchline delivers itself.  Doesn't feed the colony, but it still responds to the signal.  Tell us how.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 7, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> ITT: liberal complains about insufficient police brutality.


Liberal would like police to stop being brutal and actually protect and serve, not 'ignore and be useless", but thank you for your usual misdirection.


----------



## tabzer (Jun 7, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Liberal would like police to stop being brutal and actually protect and serve, not 'ignore and be useless", but thank you for your usual misdirection.





Dark_Ansem said:


> And yet whenever there is a terror attack or a mass shooting, if the attacker is white they tend to capture him alive




@Dark_Ansem vs. @Dark_Ansem.


----------



## KennyAtom (Jun 7, 2022)




----------



## smf (Jun 7, 2022)

tabzer said:


> And the punchline delivers itself.  Doesn't feed the colony, but it still responds to the signal.  Tell us how.


You'll need to explain exactly what point you are making and what you are asking me.



Foxi4 said:


> ITT: liberal complains about insufficient police brutality.


That isn't what they were saying, but twisting their words is funny for you I guess.



Foxi4 said:


> Diminishing someone’s rights when they’re innocent of any wrongdoing is a violation, so feeling violated in such an instance is perfectly understandable.


So we should legalize all drugs?


----------



## sith (Jun 7, 2022)

smf said:


> So we should legalize all drugs?


yes.


----------



## smf (Jun 7, 2022)

sith said:


> yes.


and what about prostitution?

Do you want to live in GTA?


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 7, 2022)

smf said:


> and what about prostitution?
> 
> Do you want to live in GTA?


Nope, which is why with legalisation should also come state monopoly.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 7, 2022)

smf said:


> So we should legalize all drugs?


Pretty much, yes. Drug possession is a vice crime, drug consumption is a matter of personal health and the government has absolutely no business criminalising either. All it does is create opportunity for organised crime, much like alcohol prohibition did. I’ve answered that question extensively earlier - what a person ingests is their business so long as they do not cause harm to others while they’re doing it. Legalising drugs makes them safer for consumers since they’d be subject to the same checks as other medicines, plus it creates a new emerging market which allows former petty criminals to go clean and legally participate in the economy while simultaneously eliminating associated organised crime.


smf said:


> and what about prostitution?


It’s none of the government’s business to legislate or criminalise what people do with their penises and vaginas, criminalised prostitution only incentivises human trafficking and other associated criminal activity. The illegal part of prostitution is the moment when money changes hands, and I don’t see a reason why that should be. Put a camera in the same room and all of a sudden it’s not prostitution, it’s pornography. Legalising prostitution allows all prostitutes to make a legal, taxable income - they’d be eligible to get a pension and make an honest living. They’d also be able to take advantage of the healthcare system more openly, without hiding their occupation from doctors, and as such get better disease screenings. Finally, it eliminates another source of income for organised criminals, putting pimps out of a job. It’s just another criminalised vice, making it illegal does more harm than good.


Dark_Ansem said:


> Nope, which is why with legalisation should also come state monopoly.


That takes away one of the key benefits of legalisation - a path to making an honest, legal and taxable income for those involved in the trade. There’s no government monopoly in the production of medical drugs, I see no reason why recreational drugs should work differently.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 7, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> That takes away one of the key benefits of legalisation - a path to making an honest, legal and taxable income for those involved in the trade. There’s no government monopoly in the production of medical drugs, I see no reason why recreational drugs should work differently.


Because without state monopoly there will be no obstacle to criminality.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 7, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Because without state monopoly there will be no obstacle to criminality.


The opposite is true, as seen in countries that have broadly decriminalised large swathes of drugs. Amsterdam didn’t spontaneously explode when soft drugs and prostitution were legalised (or rather, when they became tolerated, it’s pretty complicated still) - people opened up “coffee shops” and brothels and they’re making an honest living. Legalising them removes the incentive for criminality - there’s a legal pathway to achieve the same result as before, so risking jail time makes no sense. In fact, I’d argue that it’s not going far enough - all drugs should be subject to the same lenient policies and people should only be punished in instances when they do harm under the influence, as is the case with alcohol.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 7, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> The opposite is true, as seen in countries that have broadly decriminalised large swathes of drugs. Amsterdam didn’t spontaneously explode when soft drugs and prostitution were legalised - people opened up “coffee shops” and brothels and they’re making an honest living. Legalising them removes the incentive for criminality - there’s a legal pathway to achieve the same result as before, so risking jail time makes no sense. In fact, I’d argue that it’s not going far enough - all drugs should be subject to the same, lenient policies and people should only be punished in instances when they do harm under the influence, as is the case with alcohol.


All these shops you mentioned need still to get a state license and comply with certain standards. All licenses are government-controlled in the Netherlands, for example. https://www.government.nl/topics/drugs/toleration-policy-regarding-soft-drugs-and-coffee-shops
It's nto a "free market" in the sense that Libertarians think.
And when it comes to prostitution, the emphasis should be health and welfare, as opposed to generating profit.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 7, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> All these shops you mentioned need still to get a state license and comply with certain standards. All licenses are government-controlled in the Netherlands, for example. https://www.government.nl/topics/drugs/toleration-policy-regarding-soft-drugs-and-coffee-shops
> It's nto a "free market" in the sense that Libertarians think.


That is true, but I’d be happy to make that concession so long as people stop going to prison for what they do with their bodies. Bars need alcohol licenses too and I’m not up in arms about it. It’s a “free market” in the sense that it’s open to the public - you can buy recreational drugs in much the same way as regular medicine, you don’t need to go to a state-ran vendor (which is what state monopoly means - if that’s not what you meant then that’s fine), the businesses are privately held.


> And when it comes to prostitution, the emphasis should be health and welfare, as opposed to generating profit.


One goes hand in hand with the other - prostitutes need to make money in order to support themselves.


----------



## Subtle Demise (Jun 7, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> @Xzi mentioned that he owns a 1911 pistol - guess when Browning came up with that one? In 1911, over a hundred years ago. If anything, weapons development is pretty slow nowadays - it’s more about optimisation than anything else. The most groundbreaking innovations were already developed in the 19th and 20th centuries. Could they imagine a nuke? I don’t know, but they didn’t have any issues with civilians owning straight up artillery. This weird idea that people in early America were shooting firearms only narrowly better than throwing stones is just patently untrue, and the founders witnessed just how rapid arms development was. They wouldn’t have changed a thing.


Another fun fact: That AR-15 everyone is so up in arms about (pun somewhat intended)? Manufactured starting in 1959, with its design dating back to 1956. Another fun fact: it was only a "weapon of war" for one year of the Vietnam War, from 1962-1963. Not exactly the high-tech mass murder machine people make out to be.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 7, 2022)

smf said:


> and what about prostitution?
> 
> Do you want to live in GTA?


Actually there's been quite a few countries that have experimented with the legalization of both drugs and prostitution, Australia for example, where crime related to drugs and prostitution has gone down significantly. Granted, I'm not saying that would work here, because Americans are terrible people, but I like hearing about progressive programs.



KennyAtom said:


>


I love people who love Spike Cohen. He's being made out to be this Che Guevara like embodiment, followed by millions of rebel sheep to the Republican slaughter.

It's also cute how no one stops to realize that as long as the NRA and gun manufacturers continue lobbying government officials, the government will never listen to the common majority. Why bother listening to our words and votes when billion dollar industries keeping putting checks in their pockets?


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 7, 2022)

Subtle Demise said:


> Another fun fact: That AR-15 everyone is so up in arms about (pun somewhat intended)? Manufactured starting in 1959, with its design dating back to 1956. Another fun fact: it was only a "weapon of war" for one year of the Vietnam War, from 1962-1963. Not exactly the high-tech mass murder machine people make out to be.


Stoner’s various designs were rejected by the military, it exists only because ArmaLite wanted to downsize the calibre of the AR-10, and it was only adopted because military trials at the time have failed to find an adequate replacement for the M14 - a watermelon shootout at a party had more to do with it becoming a military weapon than anything else. Good video by Gun Jesus, along with the other ones about the ArmaLite gas system.



SyphenFreht said:


> Actually there's been quite a few countries that have experimented with the legalization of both drugs and prostitution, Australia for example, where crime related to drugs and prostitution has gone down significantly. Granted, I'm not saying that would work here, because Americans are terrible people, but I like hearing about progressive programs.
> 
> 
> I love people who love Spike Cohen. He's being made out to be this Che Guevara like embodiment, followed by millions of rebel sheep to the Republican slaughter.
> ...


Are you saying that the man is wrong here? I do see some blame-shifting going on. “Bad thing happens = Let’s punish everyone” is not a good way to legislate, especially not when constitutional rights are concerned. I agree with most of the other things you’ve said, but I question this part, as well as your statement on Americans being “bad people”. It’s an odd generalisation to make - what makes them “bad”, exactly?

You can put the blame on the NRA all day long, but it won’t change the fact that 44% of American households admit to having firearms on the premises in surveys, and that’s just those who openly admit to having them. It’s fair to assume that the Real number is higher since not everyone volunteers such information. There are 120 firearms in America per 100 citizens, and most owners own multiple different weapons. Americans own half of all civilian firearms in the entire world. It’s a right officially exercised by near enough half of Americans, unofficially it’s likely more than half. Owning firearms need much “advertising”.


----------



## AleronIves (Jun 7, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> ITT: liberal complains about insufficient police brutality.


I just got a mental image of Stryker beating up a guy until he explodes.

ＢＲＵＴＡＬＩＴＹ


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 8, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> I just got a mental image of Stryker beating up a guy until he explodes.
> 
> ＢＲＵＴＡＬＩＴＹ


Always enjoyed playing as Stryker - anyone who brings a gun to a fist fight obviously knows how to get the upper hand. If you think that’s dishonourable in a martial arts tournament, consider the fact that you’re fighting against supernatural kombatants (ha!), including sorcerers, the undead, a literal god of lightning and more. I think it’s fair game at that point, evens out the odds.


----------



## AleronIves (Jun 8, 2022)

To be fair, Raiden isn't in MK3, so you can't use the "fighting a god of lightning" excuse until MKT.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 8, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Are you saying that the man is wrong here? I do see some blame-shifting going on. “Bad thing happens = Let’s punish everyone” is not a good way to legislate, especially not when constitutional rights are concerned. I agree with most of the other things you’ve said, but I question this part, as well as your statement on Americans being “bad people”. It’s an odd generalisation to make - what makes them “bad”, exactly?



Am I saying Spike Cohen is bad? Not inherently. But arguing whether he's bad or good based on his people isn't a good platform, much like Trump and his blind followers. No, my comment was more on how people flock to these... Paragons, of whatever societal ideals of whatever the current trend is. He might make some good points but, just like every other politician or other in this day and age, his fifteen minutes of fame will rocket and then fizzle out, leaving all these sheep confused and distraught. Honestly it's more of a commentary on how people are quick to adhere to a political stance of power like it's gospel, not understanding that they're just players of the current political environment.



Foxi4 said:


> You can put the blame on the NRA all day long, but it won’t change the fact that 44% of American households admit to having firearms on the premises in surveys, and that’s just those who openly admit to having them. It’s fair to assume that the Real number is higher since not everyone volunteers such information. There are 120 firearms in America per 100 citizens, and most owners own multiple different weapons. Americans own half of all civilian firearms in the entire world. It’s a right officially exercised by near enough half of Americans, unofficially it’s likely more than half. Owning firearms need much “advertising”.



I won't say the American people are completely oblivious and without blame, but the NRA is just as predatory as the next century+ old industry. If they hadn't pushed for the wanton sale of guns based on 2A fear campaigns, there probably wouldn't be as many guns circling society as what there is today. That could be a good thing, or a bad thing, but regardless of what it could be, predatory conditioning shouldn't be used to combat predatory conditioning.


----------



## KennyAtom (Jun 8, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Always enjoyed playing as Stryker - anyone who brings a gun to a fist fight obviously knows how to get the upper hand. If you think that’s dishonourable in a martial arts tournament, consider the fact that you’re fighting against supernatural kombatants (ha!), including sorcerers, the undead, a literal god of lightning and more. I think it’s fair game at that point, evens out the odds.


you also have to be a little stupid as well

I mean, there's people who can, and this isn't an exhaustive list

- teleport behind you, hitting you
- freeze you
- steal your soul and literally go inside you, exploding you or making you rip your own head off 
-  Someone with a large fucking hammer

Either he's really ballsy, or just completely fucking stupid


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 8, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> To be fair, Raiden isn't in MK3, so you can't use the "fighting a god of lightning" excuse until MKT.


Yes, that makes it all better. I guess he is a bit of an asshole, the rest seems fair. 


KennyAtom said:


> you also have to be a little stupid as well
> 
> I mean, there's people who can, and this isn't an exhaustive list
> 
> ...


Stupid is what stupid does.


SyphenFreht said:


> Am I saying Spike Cohen is bad? Not inherently. But arguing whether he's bad or good based on his people isn't a good platform, much like Trump and his blind followers. No, my comment was more on how people flock to these... Paragons, of whatever societal ideals of whatever the current trend is. He might make some good points but, just like every other politician or other in this day and age, his fifteen minutes of fame will rocket and then fizzle out, leaving all these sheep confused and distraught. Honestly it's more of a commentary on how people are quick to adhere to a political stance of power like it's gospel, not understanding that they're just players of the current political environment.


I’m not really familiar with who this man is - I’m simply looking at the argument and he’s making a good point. One of the key arguments for restricting civilian access to firearms is safety. We are supposed to believe that the state should have a near-complete monopoly on firearms and that the police will step in and solve all of our problems, so there’s “no need” for civilian ownership, but that’s almost never the case. Earlier in the thread we’ve discussed that they’re not even obligated to act when in harm’s way (nor should they - we should not expect others to lay their lives down for us). Who could possibly be more responsible for protecting me than myself? It’s my life.


SyphenFreht said:


> I won't say the American people are completely oblivious and without blame, but the NRA is just as predatory as the next century+ old industry. If they hadn't pushed for the wanton sale of guns based on 2A fear campaigns, there probably wouldn't be as many guns circling society as what there is today. That could be a good thing, or a bad thing, but regardless of what it could be, predatory conditioning shouldn't be used to combat predatory conditioning.


If the NRA is advocating for gun rights in order to make money, they’re not doing a very good job - they filed for bankruptcy last year. The case was dismissed and the organisation could face dissolution. The weapons business is certainly lucrative, but the NRA doesn’t appear to be a major beneficiary of those proceeds. They’re not spending *that* much on lobbying either - they’re not even in the top 10. Amazon and Facebook (now Meta) both spent well over $5m  each on lobbying in 2022 so far, placing 7th and 8th. Guess how much the NRA spent? $650k.

https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/top-spenders

https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary?cycle=2022&id=d000000082

Now, don’t get me wrong - the NRA is the biggest organisation of its kind in America by far, they spend more than all other gun advocacy groups put together, but their spending pales in comparison to other groups, or individual companies for that matter. Comcast alone has spent $3.3m this year making sure your Internet connection continues to be crap.

https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary?cycle=2022&id=D000000461

If there’s big money involved here then I’m just not seeing it. Senators and congressmen have far better revenue streams than this, evidently. The NRA is on the precipice of collapsing, and has been for a very long time due to legal issues and decline in membership. Not even gun proponents like the organisation as much as they used to, it doesn’t seem to adequately represent their interests.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 8, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I’m not really familiar with who this man is - I’m simply looking at the argument and he’s making a good point. One of the key arguments for restricting civilian access to firearms is safety. We are supposed to believe that the state should have a near-complete monopoly on firearms and that the police will step in and solve all of our problems, so there’s “no need” for civilian ownership, but that’s almost never the case. Earlier in the thread we’ve discussed that they’re not even obligated to act when in harm’s way (nor should they - we should not expect others to lay their lives down for us). Who could possibly be more responsible for protecting me than myself? It’s my life.



I actually don't mind Spike Cohen. Or Ben Shapiro (mostly). I like people from all sides of the political spectrum that can debate their ideals eloquently and intelligently. And it's not even that he's morally wrong in my eyes, but I would hate for him to become this pariah for millions of people who simply don't know better.

But then again, he's the same victim many Americans are: getting falsely bred into believing their 2A rights are being attacked. "Infringed". Which brings me to...



Foxi4 said:


> If the NRA is advocating for gun rights in order to make money, they’re not doing a very good job - they filed for bankruptcy last year. The case was dismissed and the organisation could face dissolution. The weapons business is certainly lucrative, but the NRA doesn’t appear to be a major beneficiary of those proceeds. They’re not spending *that* much on lobbying either - they’re not even in the top 10. Amazon and Facebook (now Meta) both spent well over $5m  each on lobbying in 2022 so far, placing 7th and 8th. Guess how much the NRA spent? $650k.
> 
> https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/top-spenders
> 
> ...



Honestly I'm not surprised. I mean for years the NRA spear headed pro gun campaigns, and while the company itself probably didn't make much money, I'd bet my annual income at least the ringleaders profited from lobbying, more than likely storing their money in offshore accounts. Conjecture, sure, but that same tactic has been used by many companies in many different areas for many different reasons. 

But even aside from that, I wouldn't be surprised to see the NRA in it's current form become dissolved and, if it doesn't eventually disappear, reform into something else. They know their hands are red from the water they've swam in, so misdirection would be the next way to go. But again, at the end of the day, the NRA and related entities aren't forcing people to buy guns, so personal responsibility picks up a lot of the slack.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 8, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> I actually don't mind Spike Cohen. Or Ben Shapiro (mostly). I like people from all sides of the political spectrum that can debate their ideals eloquently and intelligently. And it's not even that he's morally wrong in my eyes, but I would hate for him to become this pariah for millions of people who simply don't know better.
> 
> But then again, he's the same victim many Americans are: getting falsely bred into believing their 2A rights are being attacked. "Infringed". Which brings me to...


But they are being attacked and infringed. How can people not think that? The measures being discussed right now are not reasonable preventative steps like red flag laws and such, aimed specifically at perpetrators of these heinous acts. What’s being discussed is potentially restricting access to rifles, again - measures like this primarily punish law abiding citizens. It’s very unlikely to come to fruition, but it does affect public sentiment.


SyphenFreht said:


> Honestly I'm not surprised. I mean for years the NRA spear headed pro gun campaigns, and while the company itself probably didn't make much money, I'd bet my annual income at least the ringleaders profited from lobbying, more than likely storing their money in offshore accounts. Conjecture, sure, but that same tactic has been used by many companies in many different areas for many different reasons.
> 
> But even aside from that, I wouldn't be surprised to see the NRA in it's current form become dissolved and, if it doesn't eventually disappear, reform into something else. They know their hands are red from the water they've swam in, so misdirection would be the next way to go. But again, at the end of the day, the NRA and related entities aren't forcing people to buy guns, so personal responsibility picks up a lot of the slack.


Wait a minute now, you’re shifting the goal posts here. What you said was that the NRA was at at fault for the current state of affairs because they were funnelling money into campaigning by the wheelbarrow, and now that I’ve shown you the receipts, you’re telling me that you’re not surprised and that the people behind the NRA have some kind of undisclosed stash of funds? I’m sure they’re quite wealthy in their private lives, but how does that affect legislation? I don’t really care how much money people have in their accounts, domestic or off-shore - I only care about lobbying, since that was the subject. It doesn’t really matter to me either way - I despise corrupt politicians regardless of whether they’re being bribed to do things I agree or disagree with, but if the numbers don’t align with the conclusion, I have to point it out. In your opinion, is it at all possible that firearms are prevalent in America and gun rights are strongly supported simply because a large part of the population, about half of it, actually believes that they have utility and consider bearing arms to be a right? Now, for the record, this isn’t a question about supporting or not supporting more gun control measures, it’s about the sentiment towards guns in general. I think that’s far more likely to be true compared to it being a result of campaigning by gun rights groups.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 8, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> But they are being attacked and infringed. How can people not think that? The measures being discussed right now are not reasonable preventative steps like red flag laws and such, aimed specifically at perpetrators of these heinous acts. What’s being discussed is potentially restricting access to rifles, again - measures like this primarily punish law abiding citizens. It’s very unlikely to come to fruition, but it does affect public sentiment.



How are they being attacked and infringed? By applying restrictions and preventative measures? The 2A explicitly states that citizens should be free to arm themselves, but does not state that restrictions and guidelines fall under that same oppressive umbrella. Now, if you're referring to the conversation of gun banning that happens every time a tragedy like this happens that always amounts to nothing? I think we can both agree that you're too smart to believe the chatter. It's fear campaigning that wins every time.



Foxi4 said:


> Wait a minute now, you’re shifting the goal posts here. What you said was that the NRA was at at fault for the current state of affairs because they were funnelling money into campaigning by the wheelbarrow, and now that I’ve shown you the receipts, you’re telling me that you’re not surprised and that the people behind the NRA have some kind of undisclosed stash of funds? I’m sure they’re quite wealthy in their private lives, but how does that affect legislation? I don’t really care how much money people have in their accounts, domestic or off-shore - I only care about lobbying, since that was the subject. It doesn’t really matter to me either way - I despise corrupt politicians regardless of whether they’re being bribed to do things I agree or disagree with, but if the numbers don’t align with the conclusion, I have to point it out. In your opinion, is it at all possible that firearms are prevalent in America and gun rights are strongly supported simply because a large part of the population, about half of it, actually believes that they have utility and consider bearing arms to be a right? Now, for the record, this isn’t a question about supporting or not supporting more gun control measures, it’s about the sentiment towards guns in general. I think that’s far more likely to be true compared to it being a result of campaigning by gun rights groups.



It's not moving the goal posts when it's establishing a timeline. What the NRA has done in the past, up to and including current events, has all helped get American society to where it is now. With the receipts that you've shown, over the past year or so if I'm correct, you've shown what appears to be a steady decline, which is eerily reminiscent of the same tactics similar companies in similar situations have used before. You seem to imply that only what they've done recently is pertinent, when in fact it's an issue that's been going on for decades, easily. Of course, that could be misinterpretation on my part.

"In your opinion, is it at all possible that firearms are prevalent in America and gun rights are strongly supported simply because a large part of the population, about half of it, actually believes that they have utility and consider bearing arms to be a right? "

Of course it's possible. It could even be likely. But my issue isn't with people who honestly feel they should own a gun because of any impending government tyranny, or even for sport or affinity; my issue is with people who buy guns off fear campaigns and 2A misrepresentations, and then feel they're allowed to use those guns as an extension of their anger toward everyday people because they've fallen prey to corrupt politicians and lobbyists who push these agendas to further line their own pockets.

Don't let me become misrepresented: I have no issue with responsible people owning guns responsibly. It doesn't, however, need to be fed off the backs of hungry shareholders who care nothing about average Joe's killing each other as long as they pad their pay.


----------



## assassinz (Jun 8, 2022)

Until the government takes the guns away from those in the cartel, gang members, organized crime, and stop releasing criminals early, they shouldn't even consider leaving law abiding citizens defenseless against the criminals who won't follow any laws or legislation that exist now or any new laws for that matter.  And in this day and age, public institutions and private citizens should also start considering security measures to prevent more shootings by criminals.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 8, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> That is true, but I’d be happy to make that concession so long as people stop going to prison for what they do with their bodies.


These are distinct issues, however. But they probably need to be tackled together.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 8, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> These are distinct issues, however. But they probably need to be tackled together.


My general point was that a government monopoly is not required to implement legal sale of recreational drugs. We don’t have one for medicines, we don’t have one for alcohol or tobacco, I don’t see how drugs would be any different - all that’s required are basic food and drug safety checks (I say food because edibles are rather popular, and those don’t just include the active substance but also food - think gummy bears or brownies). As far as prostitution goes, “f*ck the government” is just a figure of speech - free market prostitutes are perfectly acceptable. 


SyphenFreht said:


> How are they being attacked and infringed? By applying restrictions and preventative measures? The 2A explicitly states that citizens should be free to arm themselves, but does not state that restrictions and guidelines fall under that same oppressive umbrella. Now, if you're referring to the conversation of gun banning that happens every time a tragedy like this happens that always amounts to nothing? I think we can both agree that you're too smart to believe the chatter. It's fear campaigning that wins every time.


It does state what restrictions the government is allowed to implement - in the part that says “shall not be infringed”. Any gun control measures are a concession the pro-gun side of the argument makes to meet the anti-gun half-way, and each of those measures should be subject to debate. If we take a textualist approach towards the constitution they’re all unconstitutional - we’re just allowing them to exist if they’re common sense.


> It's not moving the goal posts when it's establishing a timeline. What the NRA has done in the past, up to and including current events, has all helped get American society to where it is now. With the receipts that you've shown, over the past year or so if I'm correct, you've shown what appears to be a steady decline, which is eerily reminiscent of the same tactics similar companies in similar situations have used before. You seem to imply that only what they've done recently is pertinent, when in fact it's an issue that's been going on for decades, easily. Of course, that could be misinterpretation on my part.


It is my opinion that American society has always been like this - the gun lobby, including the NRA, is just society organising itself to advocate for their own rights. Of course it’s not exactly selfless by any means, but I think the idea that the “gun lobby” has a huge impact on how society thinks is exaggerated - it’s no different than any other lobby group, and there are far stronger ones out there. In terms of all-time impact, the NRA is ranked 21st overall in terms of lobbying strength, out of 500-odd organisations listed - that’s in the Top 100, and significant for sure, but there are 20 organisations ahead of it.


> "In your opinion, is it at all possible that firearms are prevalent in America and gun rights are strongly supported simply because a large part of the population, about half of it, actually believes that they have utility and consider bearing arms to be a right? "
> 
> Of course it's possible. It could even be likely. But my issue isn't with people who honestly feel they should own a gun because of any impending government tyranny, or even for sport or affinity; my issue is with people who buy guns off fear campaigns and 2A misrepresentations, and then feel they're allowed to use those guns as an extension of their anger toward everyday people because they've fallen prey to corrupt politicians and lobbyists who push these agendas to further line their own pockets.


I don’t think that’s what’s on the minds of most mass shooters when they commit their crimes - they usually have a more specific motivation.


> Don't let me become misrepresented: I have no issue with responsible people owning guns responsibly. It doesn't, however, need to be fed off the backs of hungry shareholders who care nothing about average Joe's killing each other as long as they pad their pay.


I can shake on that, as long as we don’t forget that punishing law abiding and responsible citizens for some kind of nebulous “greater good” is wrong. A law abiding citizen will happily abide the law and its various requirements in the pursuit of owning the firearm they want - what’s unfair is telling them they *can’t* have one at all, or creating an obstacle specifically designed to be insurmountable for the average citizen, which is effectively a ban.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 8, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> It does state what restrictions the government is allowed to implement - in the part that says “shall not be infringed”. Any gun control measures are a concession the pro-gun side of the argument makes to meet the anti-gun half-way, and each of those measures should be subject to debate. If we take a textualist approach towards the constitution they’re all unconstitutional - we’re just allowing them to exist if they’re common sense.



We're going to have to agree to disagree on each other's definition of infringement; I don't feel putting a restriction or limitation on owning a gun as an outright infringement because at that point, depending on the parameters of the restriction, the only real limitation comes from the individual in question. A hypothetical: if gun sales have absolutely no restrictions, then theoretically a five year old could buy one. Would you consider the age requirement an infringement of little Billy's right to purchase said firearm? Now, we can certainly agree that some of the restrictions might blur the line a bit, but regulation is inherent if capitalism. If guns were as freely passed around as marijuana, for example, then private corporations couldn't profit on the sale of.



Foxi4 said:


> It is my opinion that American society has always been like this - the gun lobby, including the NRA, is just society organising itself to advocate for their own rights. Of course it’s not exactly selfless by any means, but I think the idea that the “gun lobby” has a huge impact on how society thinks is exaggerated - it’s no different than any other lobby group, and there are far stronger ones out there. In terms of all-time impact, the NRA is ranked 21st overall in terms of lobbying strength, out of 500-odd organisations listed - that’s in the Top 100, and significant for sure, but there are 20 organisations ahead of it.



The fact that you mentioned that the NRA ranks 21 out... How many groups? Only furthers my point. They might not lobby as big as the Internet companies you've mentioned before, but should lobbying really be a common thing? Without derailing, this is the same type of behavior that brought Russia to the patched together Buzzfeed article of an economy they have now.



Foxi4 said:


> I don’t think that’s what’s on the minds of most mass shooters when they commit their crimes - they usually have a more specific motivation.



What's their specific motivation? To grab a gun and go shoot anyone else that isn't the government? Are they exercising their 2A rights? 



Foxi4 said:


> I can shake on that, as long as we don’t forget that punishing law abiding and responsible citizens for some kind of nebulous “greater good” is wrong. A law abiding citizen will happily abide the law and its various requirements in the pursuit of owning the firearm they want - what’s unfair is telling them they *can’t* have one at all, or creating an obstacle specifically designed to be insurmountable for the average citizen, which is effectively a ban.



I believe the obstacles you're referring to were initially put in place to ensure that the people who shouldn't have guns, don't have them. However, the bad apples that are the few shouldn't break the system that, thus far, can be seen as working, although not ideally in many forms. Don't break the whole system because bad guys get guns anyway, reform the system so that people who are responsible can live comfortably and the people who abuse it get punished adequately. Also, something something something preventative measures.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 8, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> We're going to have to agree to disagree on each other's definition of infringement; I don't feel putting a restriction or limitation on owning a gun as an outright infringement because at that point, depending on the parameters of the restriction, the only real limitation comes from the individual in question. A hypothetical: if gun sales have absolutely no restrictions, then theoretically a five year old could buy one. Would you consider the age requirement an infringement of little Billy's right to purchase said firearm? Now, we can certainly agree that some of the restrictions might blur the line a bit, but regulation is inherent if capitalism. If guns were as freely passed around as marijuana, for example, then private corporations couldn't profit on the sale of.
> 
> The fact that you mentioned that the NRA ranks 21 out... How many groups? Only furthers my point. They might not lobby as big as the Internet companies you've mentioned before, but should lobbying really be a common thing? Without derailing, this is the same type of behavior that brought Russia to the patched together Buzzfeed article of an economy they have now.


This is an all-time ranking - the NRA is very, very old.


> What's their specific motivation? To grab a gun and go shoot anyone else that isn't the government? Are they exercising their 2A rights?


Murder is illegal.


> I believe the obstacles you're referring to were initially put in place to ensure that the people who shouldn't have guns, don't have them. However, the bad apples that are the few shouldn't break the system that, thus far, can be seen as working, although not ideally in many forms. Don't break the whole system because bad guys get guns anyway, reform the system so that people who are responsible can live comfortably and the people who abuse it get punished adequately. Also, something something something preventative measures.


That was my point all along - the rights of the many outweigh the sins of the few, so there’s no reason to break the system.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 8, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Murder is illegal.



Well yes, but that wasn't the question. Just like banning guns will likely still have bad people getting guns, murder being illegal doesn't stop people from murdering. There needs to exist a way where preventative measures can be instilled without making it impossible for people to exercise their rights.... 



Foxi4 said:


> That was my point all along - the rights of the many outweigh the sins of the few, so there’s no reason to break the system.



So why break the system we have now? It's working, objectively, and if the majority of the voting populace wanted no gun control, why haven't they voted enough of the right people in office to do so? It seems to me that a majority of Americans are satisfied with the broken gun control system we have now, at least in regards to no gun control whatsoever. Seems a little odd we should break the system in favor of the few, right?


----------



## AleronIves (Jun 8, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> What's their specific motivation? To grab a gun and go shoot anyone else that isn't the government? Are they exercising their 2A rights?


Jordan Peterson, among others, has commented on this. In his view, which I think is correct, mass shooters are operating out of a profound sense of nihilism. They believe that not only is life nothing but suffering and therefore not worth living, but that the ultimate gift they can give is to relieve the suffering of others by freeing them from this mortal coil. As such, they try to take out as many people as possible before killing themselves, because they see it as advancing the "greater good" (relieving people of the state of suffering known as "life"). It's a very dark ideology, but there is a twisted logic to it, which suggests that such people can be convinced to take a different path if we can reach them before their sense of despair becomes overwhelming.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 9, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> Jordan Peterson, among others, has commented on this. In his view, which I think is correct, mass shooters are operating out of a profound sense of nihilism. They believe that not only is life nothing but suffering and therefore not worth living, but that the ultimate gift they can give is to relieve the suffering of others by freeing them from this mortal coil. As such, they try to take out as many people as possible before killing themselves, because they see it as advancing the "greater good" (relieving people of the state of suffering known as "life"). It's a very dark ideology, but there is a twisted logic to it, which suggests that such people can be convinced to take a different path if we can reach them before their sense of despair becomes overwhelming.


Peterson is a smart man whenever he’s not on a metric tonne of benzos. Good lectures regarding personality, but the guy wasn’t ready for becoming suddenly and unexpectedly famous. He’s an internet daddy for many young men who feel disenfranchised, and he’s helped many of them, but the guy has his own problems, so some of his opinions should be taken with a pinch of salt. He should take his own advice and clean his room first. There’s no shortage of nihilist mass shooters, but for every shooter who’s a broken shell of a person there’s two who are highly motivated and have specific reasons for going through with their evil plan. Some suffer from extreme despair, others are very orderly and capable of complex planning. Psychopaths can be surprisingly organised and efficient.


SyphenFreht said:


> Well yes, but that wasn't the question. Just like banning guns will likely still have bad people getting guns, murder being illegal doesn't stop people from murdering. There needs to exist a way where preventative measures can be instilled without making it impossible for people to exercise their rights....


If you’re asking me whether their ownership of weapons is an exercise of 2A rights, the answer is yes - they have a right to own weapons. They just happen to be misusing that right to cause harm - they don’t have the right to do that. We had a conversation about causing damages earlier. The libertarian approach is very simple and based on the non-aggression principle. If you’re the aggressor, your rights are immediately void.


> So why break the system we have now? It's working, objectively, and if the majority of the voting populace wanted no gun control, why haven't they voted enough of the right people in office to do so? It seems to me that a majority of Americans are satisfied with the broken gun control system we have now, at least in regards to no gun control whatsoever. Seems a little odd we should break the system in favor of the few, right?


Who’s suggesting that? I didn’t suggest any changes, I only specified my personal beliefs, and even mentioned that they’re unusual.


----------



## AleronIves (Jun 9, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> He should take his own advice and clean his room first.


Psh, just buy his daughter's book on healthy eating to solve all your problems! It worked so well for him. 



Foxi4 said:


> Psychopaths can be surprisingly organised and efficient.


Well, yes, it takes a certain amount of intelligence to be a psychopath.

Your post does highlight why multiple approaches are necessary to reduce gun violence. You can reach some people by talking them down, but there are indeed psychopaths out there who need to be blocked from getting guns.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 9, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> Jordan Peterson, among others, has commented on this. In his view, which I think is correct, mass shooters are operating out of a profound sense of nihilism. They believe that not only is life nothing but suffering and therefore not worth living, but that the ultimate gift they can give is to relieve the suffering of others by freeing them from this mortal coil. As such, they try to take out as many people as possible before killing themselves, because they see it as advancing the "greater good" (relieving people of the state of suffering known as "life"). It's a very dark ideology, but there is a twisted logic to it, which suggests that such people can be convinced to take a different path if we can reach them before their sense of despair becomes overwhelming.




What makes them think that way, in your opinion? Or rather, do you feel it extends from personal history only, or do you believe that there are situations in society as a whole that helps to breed their sense on nihilism?



Foxi4 said:


> If you’re asking me whether their ownership of weapons is an exercise of 2A rights, the answer is yes - they have a right to own weapons. They just happen to be misusing that right to cause harm - they don’t have the right to do that. We had a conversation about causing damages earlier. The libertarian approach is very simple and based on the non-aggression principle. If you’re the aggressor, your rights are immediately void.



No the original question was my hypothetical.



Foxi4 said:


> Who’s suggesting that? I didn’t suggest any changes, I only specified my personal beliefs, and even mentioned that they’re unusual.



I'm not saying you were suggesting that, it was more rhetorical in nature.


----------



## AleronIves (Jun 9, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> What makes them think that way, in your opinion? Or rather, do you feel it extends from personal history only, or do you believe that there are situations in society as a whole that helps to breed their sense on nihilism?


Life is indeed full of suffering, and if you haven't found someone or something to make enduring the suffering worthwhile, depression is a natural result, and feeling helpless and alone often leads to anger.

Social media has undoubtedly made this phenomenon worse. If you believe the lie that everyone on Instagram has a perfect life of awesomeness, you may feel like the only person who has a sad existence, so now you're adding resentment on top of all those other negative emotions. It's not really surprising that some of these people decide to lash out.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 9, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> Life is indeed full of suffering, and if you haven't found someone or something to make enduring the suffering worthwhile, depression is a natural result, and feeling helpless and alone often leads to anger.
> 
> Social media has undoubtedly made this phenomenon worse. If you believe the lie that everyone on Instagram has a perfect life of awesomeness, you may feel like the only person who has a sad existence, so now you're adding resentment on top of all those other negative emotions. It's not really surprising that some of these people decide to lash out.


Imagine being so idiotic to believe that Instagram, of all things, is real.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 9, 2022)




----------



## tabzer (Jun 9, 2022)

I agree that selling a taco should be as easy as buying an assault rifle in Texas.

Buying a taco, however, is a lot easier.

Please continue answering our unasked question of,"how stupid are you?"


----------



## AlexMCS (Jun 9, 2022)

Equating selling something on an official store to buying something on your own gotta be one of the stupidest comparisons I've seen in the last few years...

At least compare "selling tacos to selling guns" or "buying tacos to buying guns".


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 9, 2022)

AlexMCS said:


> Equating selling something on an official store to buying something on your own gotta be one of the stupidest comparisons I've seen in the last few years...
> 
> At least compare "selling tacos to selling guns" or "buying tacos to buying guns".


Completely missing the point eh?


----------



## Hanafuda (Jun 9, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Completely missing the point eh?



Not really because that graphic is pointless.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 9, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


>


Am I the only person in this thread who actually knows what an “assault rifle” is supposed to be? You cannot buy an “assault rifle” in Texas, or anywhere in the United States, unless it was manufactured before 1986 and is already registered with the ATF. An “assault rifle” is a select fire rifle - it must feature a fire mode selector with an automatic mode, a burst fire mode or both. Weapons like that are collectible pieces which are not only prohibitively expensive, but also require additional checks. The ATF needs to approve any transfer of ownership of such weapons and can outright deny the sale, no matter how much you’re willing to pay.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act

You *cannot* buy a new firearm that would fulfil the criteria of an “assault rifle” classification - that is provided we assume that it’s even a real classification and not a marketing ploy. The term originates from the StG 44, or Sturmgewehr 44, which literally translates to “assault rifle” - we’ve been using it colloquially to describe weapons that are more substantial than a submachine gun (or machine pistol), but aren’t quite machine guns or battle rifles - they use intermediate-power cartridges. Normal semi-automatic rifles are not “assault rifles” just because politicians call them that and the public either doesn’t know any better or doesn’t care enough to call them out on their nonsense.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 9, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Am I the only person in this thread who actually knows what an “assault rifle” is supposed to be? You cannot buy an “assault rifle” in Texas, or anywhere in the United States, unless it was manufactured before 1986 and is already registered with the ATF. An “assault rifle” is a select fire rifle - it must feature a fire mode selector with an automatic mode, a burst fire mode or both. Weapons like that are collectible pieces which are not only prohibitively expensive, but also require additional checks. The ATF needs to approve any transfer of ownership of such weapons and can outright deny the sale, no matter how much you’re willing to pay.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act
> ...


I thought someone in love with oversimplification such as you would appreciate the meme!


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 9, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> I thought someone in love with oversimplification such as you would appreciate the meme!


I don’t like political misinformation, I thought someone like you would appreciate the fact check.


----------



## Dr_Faustus (Jun 9, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Pretty much, yes. Drug possession is a vice crime, drug consumption is a matter of personal health and the government has absolutely no business criminalising either. All it does is create opportunity for organised crime, much like alcohol prohibition did. I’ve answered that question extensively earlier - what a person ingests is their business so long as they do not cause harm to others while they’re doing it. Legalising drugs makes them safer for consumers since they’d be subject to the same checks as other medicines, plus it creates a new emerging market which allows former petty criminals to go clean and legally participate in the economy while simultaneously eliminating associated organised crime.
> 
> It’s none of the government’s business to legislate or criminalise what people do with their penises and vaginas, criminalised prostitution only incentivises human trafficking and other associated criminal activity. The illegal part of prostitution is the moment when money changes hands, and I don’t see a reason why that should be. Put a camera in the same room and all of a sudden it’s not prostitution, it’s pornography. Legalising prostitution allows all prostitutes to make a legal, taxable income - they’d be eligible to get a pension and make an honest living. They’d also be able to take advantage of the healthcare system more openly, without hiding their occupation from doctors, and as such get better disease screenings. Finally, it eliminates another source of income for organised criminals, putting pimps out of a job. It’s just another criminalised vice, making it illegal does more harm than good.
> 
> That takes away one of the key benefits of legalisation - a path to making an honest, legal and taxable income for those involved in the trade. There’s no government monopoly in the production of medical drugs, I see no reason why recreational drugs should work differently.




Honestly speaking this is probably one of the few times I can wholly agree with you on these sentiments. The only issue I have with drug use being fully legal is how to prioritize the healthcare system around it. If you OD or start to get worsening side effects do you get treated at the same priority as everyone else or do you get lower priority over others since its something you willingly did to yourself that got you here? In a country where the only seemingly disadvantage of drug use would be its long term effects on you over time and the possibility of OD there would be much, much more willing to try and use, but also much more using the health system to help them out when they go too far with it. There needs to be a balance so the repercussions of drug use are still in play, and at the end of the day its the person's own fate of accepted responsibility if they go too far off the edge knowing that they will probably not get immediate assistance compared to someone who actually needs it.

Its a mixed bag of concepts, that said I know people who were complete druggies who are pretty much covered by state funded healthcare as of now. I always felt mixed on the idea of giving away free healthcare to those who did it to themselves while we, the ones who struggle day and night just to keep a roof over our heads and food on the table with our own money have to also pay out for our own healthcare as well, and not have it be nearly as good as theirs. A pretty ass-backwards system don't you think?


----------



## Hanafuda (Jun 9, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I don’t like political misinformation, I thought someone like you would appreciate the fact check.



Or even a spell check.

"cetificate"


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 9, 2022)

Dr_Faustus said:


> Honestly speaking this is probably one of the few times I can wholly agree with you on these sentiments. The only issue I have with drug use being fully legal is how to prioritize the healthcare system around it. If you OD or start to get worsening side effects do you get treated at the same priority as everyone else or do you get lower priority over others since its something you willingly did to yourself that got you here? In a country where the only seemingly disadvantage of drug use would be its long term effects on you over time and the possibility of OD there would be much, much more willing to try and use, but also much more using the health system to help them out when they go too far with it. There needs to be a balance so the repercussions of drug use are still in play, and at the end of the day its the person's own fate of accepted responsibility if they go too far off the edge knowing that they will probably not get immediate assistance compared to someone who actually needs it.
> 
> Its a mixed bag of concepts, that said I know people who were complete druggies who are pretty much covered by state funded healthcare as of now. I always felt mixed on the idea of giving away free healthcare to those who did it to themselves while we, the ones who struggle day and night just to keep a roof over our heads and food on the table with our own money have to also pay out for our own healthcare as well, and not have it be nearly as good as theirs. A pretty ass-backwards system don't you think?


I don’t have that problem - people who choose to cause damage to themselves pay more for healthcare in a free market. Since I support the private model, I don’t have to rack my brains or figure out some kind of priority queue. As far as socialised medicine is concerned, the only possible priority system is first come, first served - anything short of that would classify as discrimination.


----------



## tabzer (Jun 9, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Am I the only person in this thread who actually knows what an “assault rifle” is supposed to be? You cannot buy an “assault rifle” in Texas, or anywhere in the United States, unless it was manufactured before 1986 and is already registered with the ATF. An “assault rifle” is a select fire rifle - it must feature a fire mode selector with an automatic mode, a burst fire mode or both. Weapons like that are collectible pieces which are not only prohibitively expensive, but also require additional checks. The ATF needs to approve any transfer of ownership of such weapons and can outright deny the sale, no matter how much you’re willing to pay.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act
> ...


Them black market tacos though...


----------



## tabzer (Jun 9, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Completely missing the point eh?



The point is that it's pulled right off of Instagram and:



Dark_Ansem said:


> Imagine being so idiotic to believe that Instagram, of all things, is real.



So you are testing people's ability to read between the lines.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 9, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


>





tabzer said:


> So you are testing people's ability to read between the lines.



Either that or the intent is to imply that the way regulations work in the U.S. are often baffling. Argue what you will about how regulation infringes 2A or about how selling tacos without prior education can cause hundreds, millions, to get sick and possibly die, the point seems to be that regulations only matter from the point of the profiteer. We spend so much time around here nitpicking and debating things like Instagram infographics and "bad" comparisons because no one knows how to actually add to what was supposed to an intelligent conversation.

Regulation does not infringe the rights of those who are responsible with guns, and if someone chooses to be irresponsible with guns, well, they should have their rights put on hold until they can prove their responsibility. 



Hanafuda said:


> Or even a spell check.
> 
> "cetificate"



Imagine having nothing to add to a conversation more than what a spell check bot can provide.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 9, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Either that or the intent is to imply that the way regulations work in the U.S. are often baffling. Argue what you will about how regulation infringes 2A or about how selling tacos without prior education can cause hundreds, millions, to get sick and possibly die, the point seems to be that regulations only matter from the point of the profiteer. We spend so much time around here nitpicking and debating things like Instagram infographics and "bad" comparisons because no one knows how to actually add to what was supposed to an intelligent conversation.
> 
> Regulation does not infringe the rights of those who are responsible with guns, and if someone chooses to be irresponsible with guns, well, they should have their rights put on hold until they can prove their responsibility.
> 
> ...


So what you’re telling me is that the political left believes everyone should have access to “free” socialised healthcare because they consider it a right, but the right to bear arms not only *doesn’t* imply that you get your very own rifle on your 18th birthday courtesy of the state, it actually allows the state to impede your ability to purchase a weapon and make it as complicated as humanly possible? I understand.

(I’m just pulling your leg - I know you don’t think that. Simultaneously, I don’t think we have the same definition of “infringement”. )


----------



## tabzer (Jun 9, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Either that or the intent is to imply that the way regulations work in the U.S. are often baffling. Argue what you will about how regulation infringes 2A or about how selling tacos without prior education can cause hundreds, millions, to get sick and possibly die, the point seems to be that regulations only matter from the point of the profiteer. We spend so much time around here nitpicking and debating things like Instagram infographics and "bad" comparisons because no one knows how to actually add to what was supposed to an intelligent conversation.
> 
> Regulation does not infringe the rights of those who are responsible with guns, and if someone chooses to be irresponsible with guns, well, they should have their rights put on hold until they can prove their responsibility.
> 
> ...



The intent:





SyphenFreht said:


> Regulation does not infringe the rights of those who are responsible with guns



Sure does.  Every form of "regulation" that limits the classes of "armament" that can be sold is a form of restriction.  Increasing the legal age does that too.  You do know the meaning of the word, no?  

I'll even argue that redefining who is "responsible" is a way of doing so as well.

As for the stupid infographic being stupid.  You seem to completely overlook that introducing stupid graphics is a point of failure in an "intelligent conversation". 

Comparing the selling of tacos to the purchase of tacos would be effective if the point is to demonstrate "regulations only matter from the point of the profiteer".

Ham-fisting guns into it doesn't demonstrate a working logic.


----------



## AleronIves (Jun 9, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Am I the only person in this thread who actually knows what an “assault rifle” is supposed to be?


Yes. I think we're in "that ship has sailed" territory when it comes to gun names. It's like Kleenex: the trademark is pretty useless once everybody calls every brand of facial tissue Kleenex. An "assault rifle" is just "a rifle that holds more bullets than I think it should" to most people, apparently.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 9, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> Yes. I think we're in "that ship has sailed" territory when it comes to gun names. It's like Kleenex: the trademark is pretty useless once everybody calls every brand of facial tissue Kleenex. An "assault rifle" is just "a rifle that holds more bullets than I think it should" to most people, apparently.


It’s completely nonsensical to me. Most gun crime involves handguns - they also come with high capacity magazines. They account for more than half of all mass shootings, rifles are a very distant second. The reason why should be obvious - rifles are huge and hard to conceal. That’s precisely why Texas puts more stringent requirements on handgun purchases than on rifle purchases, it’s literally common sense gun control. If a person is allowed to enter the premises of a “gun-free zone” with a rifle, that institution has failed at the very start. The rifles we’re discussing are not “assault rifles”, they’re just “black and scary” to people who don’t know anything about guns.


----------



## Creamu (Jun 9, 2022)

Can anyone tell me why the police waited instead of immediatly neutralizing the traget?


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 9, 2022)

Creamu said:


> Can anyone tell me why the police waited instead of immediatly neutralizing the traget?


Because that’s technically not their job, as per a previously mentioned court ruling.


----------



## Creamu (Jun 9, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Because that’s technically not their job, as per a previously mentioned court ruling.


This is quite perplexing to me. You have armed police waiting outside of the school while a shooting is going on. Are they serious? I would morally object to an armed civilian waiting outside but the police??? How is there a gun control debate after this, what is this world turning into???


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 9, 2022)

Creamu said:


> This is quite perplexing to me. You have armed police waiting outside of the school while a shooting is going on. Are they serious? I would morally object to an armed civilian waiting outside but the police??? How is there a gun control debate after this, what is this world turning into???


It’s just not their job to risk their life for you. It would be immoral to claim otherwise. You are right, it strengthens the self-defense argument.


----------



## Creamu (Jun 9, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> It’s just not their job to risk their life for you. It would be immoral to claim otherwise. You are right, it strengthens the self-defense argument.


Not for me, for little kids being shot. Every armed adult has the duty to intervene. We are complete nihilists.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 9, 2022)

Creamu said:


> Not for me, for little kids being shot. Every armed adult has the duty to intervene. We are complete nihilists.


I mean, you say that, but everybody generally likes to be alive and would prefer not to die. What are you going to tell the families of the dead police officers if you force them to put themselves in harm’s way, knowing that their entry point isn’t safe? The police takes out active shooters when the threat to the officer’s life is minimal - they use snipers, trick shooters to leave themselves open, trick them into releasing the hostages, so on and so forth - they don’t barge into a room knowing that they’ll immediately get shot. They’re waiting for a shooter to make some kind of mistake before they make a move. The superman myth just isn’t true, and heroics often times cause more harm than good. It’s just the way it is - real life isn’t a Chuck Norris film. Very few officers will go beyond the call of duty and risk life and limb - that’s not their job. They’re not supposed to put themselves in danger.


----------



## Creamu (Jun 9, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I mean, you say that, but everybody generally likes to be alive and would prefer not to die.


Not really. If there is a functional society with culture and spirit, there could be a situation where a man who survived shamefully would rather be dead. Think of the Samurai.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seppuku


Foxi4 said:


> What are you going to tell the families of the dead police officers if you force them to put themselves in harm’s way, knowing that their entry point isn’t safe?


That he died in honor.


Foxi4 said:


> The police takes out active shooters when the threat to the officer’s life is minimal - they use snipers, trick shooters to leave themselves open, trick them into releasing the hostages, so on and so forth - they don’t barge into a room knowing that they’ll immediately get shot.


Yes, the problem really is that the american society is so far gone that the idea of dying for it is completly foreign to the populs.


Foxi4 said:


> They’re waiting for a shooter to make some kind of mistake. The superman myth just isn’t true, and heroics often times cause more harm than good. It’s just the way it is - real life isn’t a Chuck Norris film. Very few officers will go beyond the call of duty and risk life and limb - that’s not their job. They’re not supposed to put themselves in danger.


Every man should be in the position, that he sees intervining as his duty regardless of profession.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 9, 2022)

Creamu said:


> Not really. If there is a functional society with culture and spirit, there could be a situation where a man who survived shamefully who rather be dead. Think of the Samurai.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seppuku


Ritual suicide is a barbaric way to resolve disputes.


> That he died in honor.


You can’t eat honour, it doesn’t cook well. It doesn’t put the kids through school. Honour won’t walk the daughter down the aisle on her wedding day. This kind of romanticised mentality completely removes the human element. Cops are just people, they’re not going to die for you.


> Yes, the problem really is that the american society is so far gone that the idea of dying for it is completly foreign to the populs.


You do it then.


> Every man should be in the position, that he sees intervining as his duty regardless of profession.


Intervening is good. Foolishly running into gunfire is pure stupidity. It’s very honourable to risk your life on behalf of somebody else, but you have to do that with your brain, not with your heart, otherwise you just end up with more bodies and more grieving families. Shoving meat through the one door to the classroom and letting bodies pile up until one of them gets a clean shot in is not police work, it’s suicide.


----------



## Creamu (Jun 9, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Ritual suicide is a barbaric way to resolve disputes.


The japanese back then were far more cultured then the US today. It was not meant to resolve disputes. It was for the Samurai to regain honor, it was an opportunity.


Foxi4 said:


> You can’t eat honour, it doesn’t cook well. It doesn’t put the kids through school. Honour won’t walk the daughter down the aisle on her wedding day. This kind of romanticised mentality completely removes the human element. Cops are just people, they’re not going to die for you.


It should. We should have a society where honour is rewarded. Unfortunatly merchants have higher status, what a joke.


Foxi4 said:


> You do it then


I would.


Foxi4 said:


> Intervening is good. Foolishly running into gunfire is pure stupidity. It’s very honourable to risk your life on behalf of somebody else, but you have to do that with your brain, not with your heart, otherwise you just end up with more bodies and more grieving families. Shoving meat through the one door to the classroom and letting bodies pile up until one of them gets a clean shot in is not police work, it’s suicide.


Honorable man would have found a way I am sure.


----------



## Creamu (Jun 9, 2022)

Not only should society take care of a fallen hero and his loved ones, they should erect a statue of whomever gave his/her/their life.


----------



## Xellos2099 (Jun 9, 2022)

The thing is... you do not need gun to kill massvie amount of people.  Carjack a truck and you can run down however many you wanmt and nothign can be done


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 9, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I don’t like political misinformation


Despite the fact that you do engage in it?


Foxi4 said:


> I thought someone like you would appreciate the fact check


I do, but again, you're missing the point. The point is the ridiculous complexity required to sell tacos and the relative ease of buying guns, just like the Texas shooter this thread refers to did a couple days before the event.


Xellos2099 said:


> The thing is... you do not need gun to kill massvie amount of people.  Carjack a truck and you can run down however many you wanmt and nothign can be done


Wrong. Barriers do exist. Look at the arsenal one.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 9, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> It’s just not their job to risk their life for you. It would be immoral to claim otherwise. You are right, it strengthens the self-defense argument.


Then what is their job? Search the pockets of teens for cannabis but be grown-ass useless p****s when duty calls? Protect and Serve, not "protect and be useless". 
Police in Europe has the duty to intervene.


----------



## tabzer (Jun 9, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> The point is the ridiculous complexity required to sell tacos



If only the forefathers saw this coming.

The right to bear tacos shall not be infringed.

You could at least detail the complexity, certifications, and liabilities of weapons manufacturers--and make the same argument.


----------



## AlexMCS (Jun 9, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> The point is the ridiculous complexity required *to sell* tacos and the relative ease of *buying* guns,



Again with the incredibly stupid comparison?
Sigh.

Tell me how much harder *buying *a Taco is, or how much easier is *setting up a gun SHOP* and you'd have a point.
You may think you have a point, but you do not.


----------



## AleronIves (Jun 9, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> What are you going to tell the families of the dead police officers if you force them to put themselves in harm’s way, knowing that their entry point isn’t safe?


This reminds me of the criticism the officers were facing for not letting the parents storm into the school. What happens when those parents are reckless and get shot or taken hostage by the shooter, instead of saving their children? The officers will get the blame for letting stupid people into the building who got themselves killed. There is a lot of misplaced moral outrage over the police stopping mothers from rescuing their kids, but keeping stupid members of the public from getting themselves killed is a bigger part of a policeman's job description than valiantly diving into a hail of bullets to rescue children. Bold displays of heroism are how policing works in the movies, not real life.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 10, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> It’s just not their job to risk their life for you. It would be immoral to claim otherwise. You are right, it strengthens the self-defense argument.


Technically, that is part of their job, to uphold the law and protect the innocent, which does involve risking their lives if someone is a dangerous enough criminal. There was no reason why they couldn't go in and stop the guy with the number of officers and guns they had.


----------



## Stealphie (Jun 10, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> It’s just not their job to risk their life for you.


...
L
fucking
mao


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 10, 2022)

Creamu said:


> Not only should society take care of a fallen hero and his loved ones, they should erect a statue of whomever gave his/her/their life.


That’s a lot of statues.


BitMasterPlus said:


> Technically, that is part of their job, to uphold the law and protect the innocent, which does involve risking their lives if someone is a dangerous enough criminal. There was no reason why they couldn't go in and stop the guy with the number of officers and guns they had.


”The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm (…)” - they do not have a duty to protect any specific individual from any harm. They only have a duty to more broadly “protect the public”, and not at the cost of their own life and limb.

https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/...ot-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html


Dark_Ansem said:


> Then what is their job? Search the pockets of teens for cannabis but be grown-ass useless p****s when duty calls? Protect and Serve, not "protect and be useless".
> Police in Europe has the duty to intervene.


Very good question. As for duty to intervene, I’m not so sure - I’d have to look at the law in any individual country to say if they do or don’t. As a general rule they have some degree of duty of care, I doubt they have a duty to risk their life.


Stealphie said:


> ...
> L
> fucking
> mao


I’m not sure what to tell you - it isn’t, as per court ruling above.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 10, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> ”The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm (…)” - they do not have a duty to protect any specific individual from any harm. They only have a duty to more broadly “protect the public”, and not at the cost of their own life and limb.


Well, if that's the case, that's an incredibly glaring flaw then. Gonna have to look into this more.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 10, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Despite the fact that you do engage in it?


I would never.


> I do, but again, you're missing the point. The point is the ridiculous complexity required to sell tacos and the relative ease of buying guns, just like the Texas shooter this thread refers to did a couple days before the event.


There is no constitutional right to sell tacos, there’s a constitutional right to bear arms. Ipso facto, one is not like the other.


BitMasterPlus said:


> Well, if that's the case, that's an incredibly glaring flaw then. Gonna have to look into this more.


Glad to be informing the public that they’ve been believing a myth for the better part of their lives - you’re all welcome. The person responsible for protecting your life is first and foremost you.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 10, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Glad to be informing the public that they’ve been believing a myth for the better part of their lives - you’re all welcome. The person responsible for protecting your life is first and foremost you.


I do agree with you on that, but I also thought the police do the same thing when you call them. But if this is true, I really am going to have to do an in depth on this and what ever else I either didn't know or misunderstood.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 10, 2022)

tabzer said:


> The intent:




I think that video would have better represented the argument of how bad guys will still get guns if all guns were banned.



tabzer said:


> Sure does.  Every form of "regulation" that limits the classes of "armament" that can be sold is a form of restriction.  Increasing the legal age does that too.  You do know the meaning of the word, no?
> 
> I'll even argue that redefining who is "responsible" is a way of doing so as well.
> 
> ...



Sure doesn't. The 2A ensures that the people have the right to bear arms in case of a tyrannical government. Aside from what can be inferred from the federalist papers, technically speaking having access to a bb gun could be considered enough to bear arms against said government, from the point of view of the government. At no point does the Constitution explicitly state that the people should be allowed to have the exact same armaments as said government.

You can redefine "responsible" all you want, but if we're saying that people who aren't responsible enough to abstain from shooting up a school, a church, a mall, what have you, should still be allowed to own guns, well... I'm curious to see someone fight to have prison inmates keep their gun rights.

Well coming from someone who clearly likes to bastardize their interpretations of words and their meanings, I can see why you think the graph and the intent behind it is stupid. Just because you don't understand the idea behind, or agree with it, doesn't mean it's stupid.

The point wasn't the difference between sale and purchasing rights, it was to highlight one of the many ways regulation has failed from an overarching point of view. But feel free to redefine the graph however you like; at least some of us won't resort to calling you or your information stupid because we don't understand it or disagree.

Ham-fisting the right to protect something that isn't going to be taken away does not demonstrate working logic either. It does, however, further breed the fear campaign that seems to have many a Republican up in arms (You like what I did there, didn't you? You don't have to admit it. I know)



BitMasterPlus said:


> Technically, that is part of their job, to uphold the law and protect the innocent, which does involve risking their lives if someone is a dangerous enough criminal. There was no reason why they couldn't go in and stop the guy with the number of officers and guns they had.



I thought this same thing myself, but @Foxi4 provided a link quite a few pages ago that proves this is false. What confuses me though is why the police have operated under the guise of serve and protection for so long if in fact that's far from the truth.

To the last sentence, I will still say someone should've gone in there. Hell, I would've, officer or not. But if we can't expect the cops to do anything, they certainly should've not had the right to hold the parents back from going in themselves. Seems to a precarious situation to be in if the cops won't save the kids but the able bodies parents are kept from it as well.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 10, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> I do agree with you on that, but I also thought the police do the same thing when you call them. But if this is true, I really am going to have to do an in depth on this and what ever else I either didn't know or misunderstood.


Basically they have a duty to protect the public, but that does not extend to protecting you specifically. They just respond to an emergency, like a traffic accident, and do what is in their power to prevent further harm, for instance by shutting the lane down, diverting traffic and so on. With that being said, they do not have the duty to run toward a burning car and save you specifically unless they believe they can do so without endangering themselves in the process. Makes sense, yes?


SyphenFreht said:


> I thought this same thing myself, but @Foxi4 provided a link quite a few pages ago that proves this is false. What confuses me though is why the police have operated under the guise of serve and protection for so long if in fact that's far from the truth.
> 
> To the last sentence, I will still say someone should've gone in there. Hell, I would've, officer or not. But if we can't expect the cops to do anything, they certainly should've not had the right to hold the parents back from going in themselves. Seems to a precarious situation to be in if the cops won't save the kids but the able bodies parents are kept from it as well.


That’s not quite right. They do have a duty to protect the public, just not *you* specifically. The public, not individual persons. As for the latter part, you weren’t there, so you don’t know what you would’ve done facing death. You don’t know until you’re in the moment.


----------



## tabzer (Jun 10, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Sure doesn't. The 2A ensures that the people have the right to bear arms in case of a tyrannical government.



The nuance is a little different.  "To ensure a free state".  Basically, the ability to back words with action guns.



SyphenFreht said:


> At no point does the Constitution explicitly state that the people should be allowed to have the exact same armaments as said government.



It explicitly states that the rights to bear arms shall not be infringed.



SyphenFreht said:


> You can redefine "responsible" all you want, but if we're saying that people who aren't responsible enough to abstain from shooting up a school, a church, a mall, what have you, should still be allowed to own guns, well... I'm curious to see someone fight to have prison inmates keep their gun rights.



I'm saying rebranding people as irresponsible based on IQ or psych tests that might root out potential political dissidents.



SyphenFreht said:


> Well coming from someone who clearly likes to bastardize their interpretations of words and their meanings



What are you talking about?  You seem to think as long as it's not "outright infringement" it's within parameters of the constitution.



SyphenFreht said:


> it was to highlight one of the many ways regulation has failed from an overarching point of view



What "one way"?  It assumes the conclusion is agreed upon as the premise.  Self-gratification.  It's clearly not an argument.



SyphenFreht said:


> Ham-fisting the right to protect something that isn't going to be taken away does not demonstrate working logic either.



There you go again.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 10, 2022)

tabzer said:


> It explicitly states that the rights to bear arms shall not be infringed.



Correct. Parameters are allowed to exist without infringing a right. 



tabzer said:


> I'm saying rebranding people as irresponsible based on IQ or psych tests that might root out potential political dissidents.



Adequate education can combat this as long as it's done effectively. 



tabzer said:


> What are you talking about?  You seem to think as long as it's not "outright infringement" it's within parameters of the constitution.



Much like @Foxi4 and I, you and I may have to disagree with our interpretation of infringement. Again, you can have parameters without inherently infringing rights. 



tabzer said:


> What "one way"?  It assumes the conclusion is agreed upon as the premise.  Self-gratification.  It's clearly not an argument.



It's clearly not an argument you wish to have, is all. 



tabzer said:


> There you go again.



Don't worry, there will be more.


----------



## tabzer (Jun 10, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Again, you can have parameters without inherently infringing rights.



The process of adding and tightening parameters are infringing by definition.




SyphenFreht said:


> It's clearly not an argument you wish to have, is all.



I'm inviting you to communicate what the argument actually is. For example: "Tacos are over-regulated, so 'assault rifles' should be banned."


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 10, 2022)

tabzer said:


> The process of adding and tightening parameters are infringing by definition.



That would be the case if the right to bear arms included owning whatever firearm you wish at your beck and call. Based upon your reasoning, the sale of firearms as opposed to freely giving them away would be considered an infringement as the purchase of said firearm would be considered a parameter and the price would be considered "tightening". If the hurdle you need to surpass is easily overcome, that is not an infringement. You seem to confuse "inconvenience" with "infringement".



tabzer said:


> I'm inviting you to communicate what the argument actually is. For example: "Tacos are over-regulated, so 'assault rifles' should be banned."



The idea behind the graphic is up for debate. I took the argument as: "Regulation in America is problem that exists on multiple levels. Regulations on firearms are lax when compared to the regulations surrounding food sales." You may see the argument differently. Just because we hold two different perspectives on the same graphic does not imply one perspective is dumb or even that one is right.


----------



## tabzer (Jun 10, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> That would be the case if the right to bear arms included owning whatever firearm you wish at your beck and call. Based upon your reasoning, the sale of firearms as opposed to freely giving them away would be considered an infringement as the purchase of said firearm would be considered a parameter and the price would be considered "tightening". If the hurdle you need to surpass is easily overcome, that is not an infringement. You seem to confuse "inconvenience" with "infringement".



You could argue that intentionally stifling a country's economy could translate to infringement of many rights, but the economy wasn't an idea added after the fact.



SyphenFreht said:


> Regulations on firearms are lax when compared to the regulations surrounding food sales



That's not the argument, that's the disinformation.  If I listed all of the regulations/liabilities regarding manufacturing and sales of guns and compared it to the requirements of buying a taco you'd see it as stupid, because it is.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 10, 2022)

AlexMCS said:


> Again with the incredibly stupid comparison?


Gotta do something that is at your level after all, or you'll never understand.


AlexMCS said:


> Tell me how much harder *buying *a Taco is, or how much easier is *setting up a gun SHOP* and you'd have a point.


No, I really shouldn't, because the point is to highlight different accessibility.


Foxi4 said:


> There is no constitutional right to sell tacos, there’s a constitutional right to bear arms. Ipso facto, one is not like the other.


There is a constitutional right to feed yourself and be able to set up your business. There is also a right to life found in the preamble of the declaration of independence.


----------



## AleronIves (Jun 10, 2022)

For the sake of argument, are libel laws an unconstitutional infringement of your 1A rights? I'm not sure I buy the argument that any restriction on guns whatsoever is 2A infringement.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 10, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> For the sake of argument, are libel laws an unconstitutional infringement of your 1A rights? I'm not sure I buy the argument that any restriction on guns whatsoever is 2A infringement.


I'm fairly certain they do, they feel that freedom of speech means THEY can say whatever the hell they want while they can censor everything they don't like,


----------



## Creamu (Jun 10, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> That’s a lot of statues.


Yes, maybe that would increase the motiviation to lower the homicide rate.


----------



## tabzer (Jun 10, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> For the sake of argument, are libel laws an unconstitutional infringement of your 1A rights? I'm not sure I buy the argument that any restriction on guns whatsoever is 2A infringement.


Restrictions on rights after the establishment of said rights are infringing.  It's literary.  That's not to say that they aren't made for good reason or intention.  Some rights appear to intrude on others and balance is determined by the courts; ultimately the SCOTUS.

If you want to have measures passed by pretending infringement isn't infringement, you could be setting yourself up for another Roe v Wade situation, if it isn't rejected by SCOTUS.  If measures are passed based on conflict with other constitutional guarantees, then you develop a stronger case.  The strongest is passing another amendment, or repealing , outright.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 10, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> There is also a right to life found in the preamble of the declaration of independence.


The existence of guns doesn’t impede your right to life, murder does. This is why murder is illegal and gun ownership generally isn’t.


Creamu said:


> Yes, maybe that would increase the motiviation to lower the homicide rate.


The idea that anyone is *required* (not expected to, *required*) to risk their life is false. It’s very honourable to do so, but it’s not a requirement. If you *expect* people to take a bullet for you just because they’re soldiers or policemen, you’re going to be very disappointed in your time of need.


AleronIves said:


> For the sake of argument, are libel laws an unconstitutional infringement of your 1A rights? I'm not sure I buy the argument that any restriction on guns whatsoever is 2A infringement.


We’ve explored this earlier. Libel laws are not concerned with your ability to speak, they’re concerned with damages. The government isn’t interested in (or even capable of) restricting your right to speak or express yourself, but a third-party you’ve defamed can pursue a civil suit for damages which were a direct result of you lying about them. The court only decides whether what was said was a lie or not and whether there are damages owed as a result. Since there is no restriction of a right, there’s no infringement. You are never sued for speaking, you’re sued for deliberately damaging someone’s reputation with the intent to do harm to them.

To give you an example, let’s say that you’re a contractor and I call your client, with whom you are actively negotiating, and tell them that you’re a convicted murderer and thief when you’re not, solely because I don’t like you. If that customer drops the contract as a result of that call, I’ve committed a tort - it’s tortious interference with a contract. I am liable to pay damages as a result, which are an equivalent of lost income, plus some punitive damages, perhaps. At no point am I not allowed to use the phone anymore - I can use a phone, I can’t get into other people’s business with the intent to do harm to them.

To put it in even simpler terms, let’s say speech is a car and we get into a bit of a fender bender. I’m probably not going to lose my license if it’s my fault, but I’ve caused you damages, so I owe you for repairs. You are getting restitution from me because I messed up your car. I am still entitled to drive after that, but I have to fix the damage I’ve done.


----------



## smf (Jun 10, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Who could possibly be more responsible for protecting me than myself? It’s my life.


It's at best a zero sum game, in reality it seems that you are less able to protect yourself if everyone is allowed guns.

I would much rather have to protect myself from someone with a knife than a gun. The more powerful an attacker feels, the less worried they are going to be about consequences. I'd rather they don't feel powerful at all.


----------



## smf (Jun 10, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Restrictions on rights after the establishment of said rights are infringing.  It's literary.  That's not to say that they aren't made for good reason or intention.  Some rights appear to intrude on others and balance is determined by the courts; ultimately the SCOTUS.
> 
> If you want to have measures passed by pretending infringement isn't infringement, you could be setting yourself up for another Roe v Wade situation, if it isn't rejected by SCOTUS.  If measures are passed based on conflict with other constitutional guarantees, then you develop a stronger case.  The strongest is passing another amendment, or repealing , outright.


I guess you're not christian then, because you are holding the constitution as an idol.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 10, 2022)

smf said:


> It's at best a zero sum game, in reality it seems that you are less able to protect yourself if everyone is allowed guns.
> 
> I would much rather have to protect myself from someone with a knife than a gun. The more powerful an attacker feels, the less worried they are going to be about consequences. I'd rather they don't feel powerful at all.


If that’s your preference, you’re more than welcome to not own a gun. The idea that we should remove 393 million guns from the hands of American civilians so that you can “feel safe” is not only not realistic, it puts the onus on making you feel a certain way on other people. I don’t care if you feel safe or not - that’s a you problem.


----------



## tabzer (Jun 10, 2022)

smf said:


> I guess you're not christian then, because you are holding the constitution as an idol.


Lol, what?  I'm not idolizing anything nor do I claim to be a Christian.  Acknowledging the existence of it and its supporting hierarchy has nothing to do with my reverence of it.  If you want to say the constitution doesn't matter, I'm not someone you need to convince.  You won't, but that's irrelevant.


----------



## Valwinz (Jun 10, 2022)

> A School Resource Officer Shoots and Kills ‘Suspicious’ Man Trying to Enter Elementary School​A school resource officer shot and killed a suspect near the Walnut Park Elementary School in Gadsden, Alabama on Thursday
> The suspect reportedly was attempting to enter the Alabama school, law enforcement said.



Wait so Locking the doors and Guns do work


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 10, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> The idea that we should remove 393 million guns from the hands of American civilians


which no one is talking about


----------



## smf (Jun 10, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> If that’s your preference, you’re more than welcome to not own a gun.


Or I'd protect myself by buying a gun and shooting you.
Claim it's self defense and walk free.
Simple.



Dark_Ansem said:


> which no one is talking about


That would be the only way to make US safer, adding more guns just makes it more dangerous.


----------



## smf (Jun 10, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Lol, what?  I'm not idolizing anything nor do I claim to be a Christian.  Acknowledging the existence of it and its supporting hierarchy has nothing to do with my reverence of it.  If you want to say the constitution doesn't matter, I'm not someone you need to convince.  You won't, but that's irrelevant.


It's not that the constitution doesn't matter, it's that you are idolizing it by saying the constitution can't be changed. Although I figure if you supported the change, your argument would change.

I don't need to convince you of anything, I'm just pointing out reality.


----------



## smf (Jun 10, 2022)

Valwinz said:


> Wait so Locking the doors and Guns do work


What do you mean by "work"?

A stopped clock is right twice a day.

In this case though, he was accused of trying to gain access to a car & then was killed when they tried to stop him.
Like the SRO's that body slam students, it doesn't mean that their response was helpful.


----------



## tabzer (Jun 10, 2022)

smf said:


> It's not that the constitution doesn't matter, it's that you are idolizing it by saying the constitution can't be changed. Although I figure if you supported the change, your argument would change.
> 
> I don't need to convince you of anything, I'm just pointing out reality.



I didn't say the constitution can't be changed.  I said how it literally can be changed.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 10, 2022)

smf said:


> Or I'd protect myself by buying a gun and shooting you.
> Claim it's self defense and walk free.
> Simple.


If I attack you, go for it.


Dark_Ansem said:


> which no one is talking about


smf stated that he’d much prefer defending himself from someone with a knife rather than someone with a gun. I retorted by pointing out that this premise is unrealistic because there are 393 million guns in the United States and they aren’t going anywhere, so his preference is irrelevant. Was that not obvious? We’re not talking in code.


----------



## Creamu (Jun 10, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> The idea that anyone is *required* (not expected to, *required*) to risk their life is false. It’s very honourable to do so, but it’s not a requirement. If you *expect* people to take a bullet for you just because they’re soldiers or policemen, you’re going to be very disappointed in your time of need.


Kali yuga, that's unfortunatly true. We need to return to order. Consider reading the hagakure, its a easy and quick read. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hagakure


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 10, 2022)

Creamu said:


> Kali yuga, that's unfortunatly true. We need to return to order. Consider reading the hagakure, its a easy and quick read.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hagakure


Yeah, that’s one thing ancient times were known for - order.


----------



## Creamu (Jun 10, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Yeah, that’s one thing ancient times were known for - order.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 10, 2022)

tabzer said:


> You could argue that intentionally stifling a country's economy could translate to infringement of many rights, but the economy wasn't an idea added after the fact.



I mean I'll argue to that as well to some extent. A crushing economy limits a lot of things in a lot of different ways.



tabzer said:


> That's not the argument, that's the disinformation.  If I listed all of the regulations/liabilities regarding manufacturing and sales of guns and compared it to the requirements of buying a taco you'd see it as stupid, because it is.



You should list them then. That would be a better point of contention than a graph in which who's OP's intent dropped like a heavy balloon.


----------



## tabzer (Jun 10, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> You should list them then. That would be a better point of contention than a graph in which who's OP's intent dropped like a heavy balloon.


You may take it to heart because you react to things emotionally and mistake that as being logical, but if you cannot see the disengenuity in comparing regulations and liabilities in running a business to being a customer as a gun regulation problem, this point is over your head.  Manufacturers also have liabilities to defective products, almost regardless of the industry.

I'm not going to craft disinformation charts to "combat" @Dark_Ansem's Instagram grab.  Anyone who has been in a position where they are responsible for things know that it's not a gun argument.

Another example is how difficult it is to cook casserole.  So much easier to shoot someone.



SyphenFreht said:


> I mean I'll argue to that as well to some extent. A crushing economy limits a lot of things in a lot of different ways.



Key word is intentionally.


----------



## Dr_Faustus (Jun 10, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Wrong. Barriers do exist. Look at the arsenal one.


Eh, not really a strong enough argument on that one, especially since its been a known problem that has happened before.

The argument should be that while firearms are a common form of massacre based weapon of choice, its by no means the only method of causing mass pain and death. There are many different methods to do that. Firearms typically are just the most simplistic, easiest and most abundant way of getting something with the intent to make everyone around you in reasonable range go down. That's why I stated a few times that even once we do improve gun control restrictions and screenings/technology that massacres will still be a thing, but it will be siginificantly less common, especially with firearms over time. They will have to rely on something like vehicles or other means of weaponry such as explosives or poisons, but even then that would require some more brains than driving a vehicle or pointing and shooting would. The amount of massacres will go down over time, but they will still exist none the less regardless. The goal is to make it not as easy to make happen as it has been, not to somehow make it an impossibility, which in itself is impossible to do so.


Foxi4 said:


> The idea that anyone is *required* (not expected to, *required*) to risk their life is false. It’s very honourable to do so, but it’s not a requirement. If you *expect* people to take a bullet for you just because they’re soldiers or policemen, you’re going to be very disappointed in your time of need.


For one, that is untrue, especially for branches of government police such as the Secret Service, which are, in fact required to take a bullet to prevent the death/assassination of those they are protecting. That comes part of the job in that their priority is to protect by all means, even giving up their own life to do so.

Secondly, Accepted risks of death is a common protocol when going into Police and more so in the military. Unless you plan on sitting pretty in a branch office or position in which you yourself will never have to worry about getting your hands dirty on actual outside work. Accepted risks are by all means known to those in this line of work. The same goes to firemen as well as any instance of going into a burning building there is always *ALWAYS* a strong possibility they may not get out of it alive. Its the accepted risk of the job and if you cannot deal with that then its clearly not the job for you.

Also before you start throwing random articles and bullshit my way trying to conflict this, I have friends and family who were police, fire and yes military. Every one of them knows about the accepted risks, so much so some had pre-written letters they made years ago to be sent out to others in the event that they die while on the job. Its very much something they come to accept as a possibility while in the line of work and not an uncommon expectation of those who know this when going in.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 10, 2022)

tabzer said:


> You may take it to heart because you react to things emotionally and mistake that as being logical, but if you cannot see the disengenuity in comparing regulations and liabilities in running a business to being a customer as a gun regulation problem, this point is over your head.  Manufacturers also have liabilities to defective products, almost regardless of the industry.



You make that sound like a bad thing when psychologically, that's how people operate. The difference is I respond logically and emotionally, because I'm intelligent enough to understand that both can be done competently, and eliminating emotion entirely from reason is where you get concepts like blanket laws and needless arguments over interpretations and semantics. 

The only point going over my head is how you seem to not be able to get the same gist most of us are comprehending. You spend more time arguing over a graphic as opposed to proving your stance, which shows that you're just as liable to arguing over emotion as opposed to logic. You want to say the graph is dumb, but then offer absolutely no data to back up your theory, but then hold this stance that you're above emotional attachment to your supposedly logic based debating.



tabzer said:


> I'm not going to craft disinformation charts to "combat" @Dark_Ansem's Instagram grab.  Anyone who has been in a position where they are responsible for things know that it's not a gun argument.



You're refusing to provide logical data against a stance that you seem to be against? Well it's a good thing you don't react to things emotionally. 



tabzer said:


> Key word is intentionally.



Are you implying that our economy got this way accidentally? Or that the limitations imposed by the current state of economy are falsely created because they weren't done intentionally?


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 10, 2022)

Dr_Faustus said:


> (…) before you start throwing random articles and bullshit my way trying to conflict this, I have friends and family who…


You can stop right there. Your friends and family don’t “know better” than the Supreme Court. There’s a difference between professional performance expectations and the law - I’m sure more and more of it is expected the higher up the chain you go, but at no point up that chain is it illegal to fail at your job. There’s a degree of expected/acceptable risk, it doesn’t include suicide. Besides, we are discussing the police - that’s what the case is about.

EDIT: Did a quick fact check - there is no oath that bounds a secret service agent to “take a bullet” for their VIP, even if it’s the president. Sorry - it’s not a thing.

"Contrary to popular belief, _special agents_ do not officially _swear_ an _oath_ to _take a bullet_. Rather, they are prepared to do what it takes to prevent such a a situation from ever happening. (...) What we'll do is we'll do everything in our power to keep the bullet out of the event. And that's what Secret Service is all about. It's about being prepared"
- Careers in the Secret Service, Adam Woog

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=IJVmDwAAQBAJ

In case there's any confusion, the author is literally interviewing Secret Service members about their job.

Edit 2: As far as military is concerned, this matter is covered in the Uniform Code of Military Justice under Duty to Disobey. Soldiers not only are allowed to disobey orders that are unlawful, they are *expected* to do that as following an unlawful order may (and likely will) result in criminal prosecution. Soldiers are not expected to follow orders that will predictably result in their own death, that's no different than ordering them to commit suicide, which is illegal. With that being said, the same statute indicates that soldiers disobey orders at their own peril as it will not be up to them to determine if an order was lawful or not - that's up to the courts to decide. As such, an officer can order a soldier to perform a duty likely to result in the soldier's death, but the soldier can disobey such an order if they're willing to go through a tribunal to prove they were in the right. Soldiers knowingly choose a dangerous career and there’s an expectation of the possibility of getting into potentially lethal situations, but they cannot be *ordered to die*, that’s patently false.


----------



## tabzer (Jun 10, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> You make that sound like a bad thing when psychologically, that's how people operate. The difference is I respond logically and emotionally, because I'm intelligent enough to understand that both can be done competently, and eliminating emotion entirely from reason is where you get concepts like blanket laws and needless arguments over interpretations and semantics.
> 
> The only point going over my head is how you seem to not be able to get the same gist most of us are comprehending. You spend more time arguing over a graphic as opposed to proving your stance, which shows that you're just as liable to arguing over emotion as opposed to logic. You want to say the graph is dumb, but then offer absolutely no data to back up your theory, but then hold this stance that you're above emotional attachment to your supposedly logic based debating.



If you discard the logical inequivalence of business operation to customer experience as a demonstration of how gun control is lacking, you have forfeited the logical  for the emotional.  At that point, your idea of competency is delusional.  If you compromise one for the other (emotional vs logical), neither can be consistent.

It can be argued that restrictions are high on selling, and comparatively low on buying.  These are data points that are referred to in the chart, but there is no correspondence between the difficulty of running a taco stand and the effort it takes to buy a gun.  At best, it's juxtaposition, and it's a degree beyond "apples and oranges".  Selling guns and buying guns is apples and oranges.  Selling tacos and buying guns is apple seeds to orange ice pops.  Yeah, apple seeds are lackluster in comparison.

As for the emotional and logical aspects of the law, the best I can correspond this to is the spirit of the law vs the letter of the law.  You haven't demonstrated competence of either.  You just waffle.

The whole "most of us" reference reeks of desperation.  It doesn't read sincere at all.



SyphenFreht said:


> You're refusing to provide logical data against a stance that you seem to be against? Well it's a good thing you don't react to things emotionally.



Do you know what you are referring to?  I've referred to a lack of correlation.  If anyone should provide data on a correlation, it's you or the idiot who thought Instagram was reality.  The best you have is, "it makes it look bad."  Yeah, that's the intention and it's propaganda.



SyphenFreht said:


> Are you implying that our economy got this way accidentally? Or that the limitations imposed by the current state of economy are falsely created because they weren't done intentionally?


I'm not implying either.  I took your retort about how "even economics are infringing" and pointed at how that could actually be true.

The best I can surmise of this interaction is that you find value in that propaganda can influence people.  It does.  But you go a step beyond and suggest that we should embrace it.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 10, 2022)

tabzer said:


> If you discard the logical inequivalence of business operation to customer experience as a demonstration of how gun control is lacking, you have forfeited the logical  for the emotional.  At that point, your idea of competency is delusional.  If you compromise one for the other (emotional vs logical), neither can be consistent.
> 
> It can be argued that restrictions are high on selling, and comparatively low on buying.  These are data points that are referred to in the chart, but there is no correspondence between the difficulty of running a taco stand and the effort it takes to buy a gun.  At best, it's juxtaposition, and it's a degree beyond "apples and oranges".  Selling guns and buying guns is apples and oranges.  Selling tacos and buying guns is apple seeds to orange ice pops.  Yeah, apple seeds are lackluster in comparison.
> 
> ...



It's not so much that gun control is lacking, it's that control is in the wrong spots, which is what the intent of the original graph was attempting to imply. That's where logic comes into play moreso than the emotional; logically, we can pull from the graph that regulation on both parts is ineffective at best, while the emotional argument behind it would come down to where these regulations should be placed and tightened.

Again, it's not about comparing the sale and purchase of said "apples and oranges", it's how regulation means different things to different corporations. The reason why regulations on guns are far more pertinent than tacos is because A) people equate regulation with infringement and b) there has yet to be an incident where someone used an assault taco to spree kill dozens of kids.

I don't need to display competence for anything other than my interpretation of the law at hand because I'm not in charge of creating or applying laws. Everything I stand for in the face of gun regulation could fall in an instant should guns suddenly become wholesale and legal in every aspect. Up until that point though, I will vehemently argue morality against 200+ year old ideals because, statistics or not, times have changed and the parameters are different.

"Most of us" doesn't reek of desperation when only two people have consistently argued against the implications behind the graph. Maybe I'm over assuming how other people have interpreted it, but then I can only go based on the statistical data presented before me. Otherwise I'd be discarding logical arguments in favor of only emotional.




tabzer said:


> Do you know what you are referring to?  I'm referred to a lack of correlation.  If anyone should provide data on a correlation, it's you or the idiot who thought Instagram was reality.  The best you have is, "it makes it look bad."  Yeah, that's the intention and it's propaganda.



I believe it's a general understanding that if you oppose data of any form you should at least provide your own on a similar premise. Otherwise you're discarding logic in favor of emotional debate. 

Also, it would be propaganda if it were posted everywhere and expected to be taken as unequivocal fact. As it was only used to convey an idea that at least you failed to understand, I wouldn't call that propaganda so much as a swing and a miss. 



tabzer said:


> I'm not implying either.  I took your retort about how "even economics are infringing" and pointed at how that could actually be true.



I appreciate your clarification and I'm genuinely happy we've found something we can both agree on. I apologize that it took a retort to get to that point.


----------



## Dr_Faustus (Jun 10, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> You can stop right there. Your friends and family don’t “know better” than the Supreme Court. There’s a difference between professional performance expectations and the law - I’m sure more and more of it is expected the higher up the chain you go, but at no point up that chain is it illegal to fail at your job. There’s a degree of expected/acceptable risk, it doesn’t include suicide. Besides, we are discussing the police - that’s what the case is about.


Ah yes, the Supreme Court, the privileged few that have gotten through their years on the backs of good family money and pre-existing status of influence never once having to actually know the troubles of having to be in a situation where they would have to accept the risks of their job being dangerous, because they never had to be involved in such.

The same people so high in the clouds ignoring the problems down below them they are more concerned with removing Woman's right to their bodies and more so trying to pass a bill protecting their own privileged guided asses so no crazy shooters go and try to do to them like so many have done before in schools, public places and so on, but hey those people and kids are unimportant and do not deserve to have their concerns be raised when it should only be the important and powerful that demand to have their asses be protected. Also the same people that seem to believe that federal officials should be immune to personal lawsuits as well. Plus since you yourself are not American the Supreme Court itself operates on other principles of election being pushed between a President's choice and the Senate giving the OK for it with them serving their term until they retire or pass away. Its also been something that the republican party has been very hard in trying to fill up with their own people over the years so they would have influence in what laws can be overturned, not a shock given recent events and the fact that our last president had the fortunate luck of installing 3 new members. Once these people are in office they will most likely remain in their position until they decide its time to go. Its one of the few positions in this country where once you are in the seat there is very little that can get you out of it. But _sure, these are the people that sure know better about how difficult life can be when it comes to saving lives or protecting the peace at the potential cost of their own_.


Word of advice, don't go spouting that shit you said to anyone who actually works for the police, retired or served their duty to protect and serve. It will take an immense amount of will for them to not back hand you for such gross disrespect to their line of work and the lives they have lost during. You know nothing about the amount of pressure and danger anyone in those positions have to accept and deal with and to act as if some privileged group of pampered jerkoffs know the real strife of the average American people is a fucking laughing stock. It just shows how really out of touch you are with how things really are, and that is nothing short of disrespectful for those who do put their lives on the line every day.



Foxi4 said:


> EDIT: Did a quick fact check - there is no oath that bounds a secret service agent to “take a bullet” for their VIP, even if it’s the president. Sorry - it’s not a thing.



Its not an oath, but it's an understanding that its part of the job.

"The willingness to possibly be called upon to sacrifice one’s life for that of the office of the presidency is simply understood, with no official oath or affirmation required."

If you do not know what that means, it means its an accepted risk of the line of work. There is no need to bound yourself to any official word, its explicitly understood when you take on that position that line of work you know what scenarios you have to be ready to take on even if it may result in your sacrificing your life. That is accepted risk in a nutshell, everyone that works in a job where there is an accepted risk of fatality knows this.


----------



## tabzer (Jun 10, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> It's not so much that gun control is lacking, it's that control is in the wrong spots, which is what the intent of the original graph was attempting to imply.



How does it demonstrate that?  The best I can come up with is this idea that selling tacos are so very regulated, so it would "make sense" if the purchase of guns were too... but I'm still missing the logical connection.  Manufacturing and sales seem to always carry more liability than purchases from customers.  Also, just because one thing is shitty doesn't mean that something else has to be shitty.  Based on this, it could be argued that amendments are actually effective in keeping the government out of it, not that I believe that is the reality.  For example, it is a lot more difficult to buy a taco than it is to buy a gun, but there is no amendment guaranteeing us tacos.  Shouldn't it be more difficult to buy a taco than a gun, if we are to have difficulty with either?



SyphenFreht said:


> logically, we can pull from the graph that regulation on both parts is ineffective at best



Ok.  Entertain the point.  How?



SyphenFreht said:


> Again, it's not about comparing the sale and purchase of said "apples and oranges", it's how regulation means different things to different corporations. The reason why regulations on guns are far more pertinent than tacos is because A) people equate regulation with infringement and b) there has yet to be an incident where someone used an assault taco to spree kill dozens of kids.



Selling guns is comparatively as inhibiting as selling tacos ("infringement").  Because selling tacos includes "manufacturing" aspects to which selling guns is isolated from, there is a slight, even proportional, degree of difference.  On the manufacturing end of guns, there is liability placed on the nature of defects, vs selling bad meat on the vendor end.

If we could punish all of humanity for the people who would harbor malicious intent, should we? I'm undecided myself. So, I could agree with you, but I'm not jumping the gun. 



SyphenFreht said:


> I don't need to display competence for anything other than my interpretation of the law at hand because I'm not in charge of creating or applying laws.



Fair.



SyphenFreht said:


> Up until that point though, I will vehemently argue morality against 200+ year old ideals because, statistics or not, times have changed and the parameters are different.



Okay.  So if you are suggesting that "times have changed" and "we have evolved" how do you propose an approach to "refurnishing" the law?



SyphenFreht said:


> "Most of us" doesn't reek of desperation when only two people have consistently argued against the implications behind the graph.



It reeks of desperation because of a couple of things.  It's a bandwagon appeal plus, statistically, it's 2 vs 3, and you are losing on that account.  I don't respect the appeal, flat out.  I know I generally don't agree with anybody.  But when you try that and misrepresent, It's embarrassing to me.  Maybe you can solicit more likes from other members of this forum.  I know there are more people who don't like how I present myself.



SyphenFreht said:


> I believe it's a general understanding that if you oppose data of any form you should at least provide your own on a similar premise



I didn't oppose the data, I opposed the presentation of an ambiguous inference.  I did take the extra step in suggesting a contrary juxtaposition which would have yielded predictably contrary results.  I assumed you would be more reasonable than some others, here.



SyphenFreht said:


> As it was only used to convey an idea that at least you failed to understand, I wouldn't call that propaganda so much as a swing and a miss.



Lol.  I saw the intention, but I've been pointing out the absurdity for a minute.



Dr_Faustus said:


> Ah yes, the Supreme Court, the privileged few that have gotten through their years on the backs of good family money and pre-existing status of influence never once having to actually know the troubles of having to be in a situation where they would have to accept the risks of their job being dangerous, because they never had to be involved in such.



You mean the magistrate responsible for sanctifying the holy text of America?


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 10, 2022)

tabzer said:


> How does it demonstrate that?  The best I can come up with is this idea that selling tacos are so very regulated, so it would "make sense" if the purchase of guns were too... but I'm still missing the logical connection.  Manufacturing and sales seem to always carry more liability than purchases from customers.  Also, just because one thing is shitty doesn't mean that something else has to be shitty.  Based on this, it could be argued that amendments are actually effective in keeping the government out of it, not that I believe that is the reality.  For example, it is a lot more difficult to buy a taco than it is to buy a gun, but there is no amendment guaranteeing us tacos.  Shouldn't it be more difficult to buy a taco than a gun, if we are to have difficulty with either?



Through implied inference based on perspective. Again, I take the information displayed one way, you take it another. I can argue until I'm blue in the face but at no point will I be able to get you to see it from my point of view and vice versa. 

The issue is exactly that: we don't have an inherent right to bear tacos, which can't be used to immediately kill a massive amount of people, and have so many regulations regarding the manufacturing and distribution of. Firearms can be used to immediately kill a massive amount of people, and have various regulations in place to try and prevent people to do so, but what regulations we do have are either not in the right place or are outright ignored/ fought against because we have an inherent right to bear arms, a term that is loosely interpreted to protect materialistic ideals rather than civilian solidarity. 




tabzer said:


> Ok.  Entertain the point.  How?



How are the regulations ineffective? Well in the terms of tacos, there's a lot of processes involved with selling food. I understand and agree with portions of it; I would not be behind someone who doesn't ensure that their product wouldn't do more harm than good. On the other hand, I shouldn't need a business license, a food license, and all the other red tape involved if I want to sell tacos in my community.   

In terms of guns, there are many regulations in place that inconvenience responsible gun owners without providing ample preventative measures to ensure that the next gun buyer doesn't decide to use said firearm to shoot someone they shouldn't. Frequent mental health checks, or something akin to that, could be argued as an ample preventative measure as it doesn't infringe the rights of those who are able minded with to own one. 




tabzer said:


> Selling guns is comparatively as inhibiting as selling tacos ("infringement").  Because selling tacos includes "manufacturing" aspects to which selling guns is isolated from, there is a slight, even proportional, degree of difference.  On the manufacturing end of guns, there is liability placed on the nature of defects, vs selling bad meat on the vendor end.
> 
> If we could punish all of humanity for the people who would harbor malicious intent, should we? I'm undecided myself. So, I could agree with you, but I'm not jumping the gun.



I see your comparison but I can't foresee all of gun owners having to pay the price for the faults of the few. I'm not against gun banning (infringement), but I don't see inconvenience as infringement; on a technicality, the right to "bear arms" does not explicitly state "firearms", it only refers to the ability to defend yourself. At bare minimum, you can have a rock and be completely covered by the second amendment. Anything after that rock is a choice before it's a right. Is that feasible? Of course not, but if we're going to argue that the right to bear arms is an absolute and anything after that is an infringement, well... "hands you a rock"




tabzer said:


> Okay.  So if you are suggesting that "times have changed" and "we have evolved" how do you propose an approach to "refurnishing" the approach to law?



Education and empathy. Bring back the idea of solidarity, but also alongside personal responsibility. If "all men are created equal", then community should be praised alongside self reliance, not as one or the other. 



tabzer said:


> It reeks of desperation because of a couple of things.  It's a bandwagon appeal plus, statistically, it's 2 vs 3, and you are losing on that account.  I don't respect the appeal, flat out.  I know I generally don't agree with anybody.  But when you try that and misrepresent, It's embarrassing to me.  Maybe you can solicit more likes from other members of this forum.  I know there are more people who don't like how I present myself.



I'm not worried about soliciting likes or gaining favor or even having a popular opinion. I like debating hypotheticals and fostering environments. When I say "most of us" I argue based on perception. I would welcome a change to that perception, but I'm not about to pander either. Those who feel strongly enough to agree or disagree will do so. Otherwise, my argument will stay the same. 




tabzer said:


> I didn't oppose the data, I opposed the presentation of an ambiguous inference.  I did take the extra step in suggesting a contrary juxtaposition which would have yielded predictably contrary results.  I assumed you would be more reasonable than some others, here.



If I equated your opposition of the platform to the data itself, then I do apologize. Trying to infer things in the internet is complex at best.  I didn't mind the juxtaposition but we've already buggered up the discussion focusing on it moreso than the actual topic at hand. I hate derailing, but I also hate hammering a concept into the ground,  regardless of whether (I feel) I'm wrong or not. That's just a me thing though. ADHD's a bitch.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 10, 2022)

Dr_Faustus said:


> Ah yes, the Supreme Court, the (…)


The final and supreme arbiter on the law of the land, yes. All of that “bound by word”, “brothers in arms”, “I would die for you” nonsense has no basis in law, or in reality for that matter - it’s what people in uniform tell each other to feel good about themselves. It’s not their job, period, even if their companions will frown upon blatant disregard of the “bro code”. Taking a bullet for someone is not part of the job description. The system is set up to prey on the stupid, people who will buy into the “unspoken understanding” nonsense, because they legally can’t require anyone to sacrifice their own life. That’s precisely why you can join the military at 18 and get sent off to war half way across the world when your brain isn’t even fully baked, but you can’t buy yourself a beer yet. Don’t get me wrong - thank you for your service and whatnot, but let’s not pretend that any of those jobs *require* you to die - they don’t. They carry a *risk of death*, which is not the same thing. I’m only interested in what the law says, and the law is pretty clear.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 11, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> smf stated that he’d much prefer defending himself from someone with a knife rather than someone with a gun. I retorted by pointing out that this premise is unrealistic because there are 393 million guns in the United States and they aren’t going anywhere, so his preference is irrelevant. Was that not obvious? We’re not talking in code.


I'm sorry, @smf has a perfectly valid opinion but he also acknowledged it's impossible, so it's a literal moot point. Heck not even that.


Dr_Faustus said:


> Eh, not really a strong enough argument on that one, especially since its been a known problem that has happened before.


2017 dude. we are in 2022. can't compare the beginning of the events with the current status.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 11, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> I'm sorry, @smf has a perfectly valid opinion but he also acknowledged it's impossible, so it's a literal moot point. Heck not even that.


I don’t really have a response to that - he can have that opinion, and it’s fair for him to have it. I was simply pointing out that it doesn’t affect things in context. I wasn’t exactly planning on arguing about what he prefers with him - that’d be silly. It’s his personal preference, he knows what he’d prefer better than anyone else.


----------



## budDRY (Jul 18, 2022)

your beloved government knew he was a danger to the public

https://www.texastribune.org/2022/07/17/uvalde-shooter-warnings-background/


----------



## KennyAtom (Jul 18, 2022)

budDRY said:


> your beloved government knew he was a danger to the public
> 
> https://www.texastribune.org/2022/07/17/uvalde-shooter-warnings-background/


ignoring the necro, that's a federal problem, not a Texas problem.

Background checks should have worked, but they didn't, so we can blame that on the feds.


----------

