|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
|
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Hell, I've been in a museum/workshop that actively restores dozens old WWII aircraft until they're flightworthy. But given that even commercial aircraft have obvious military applications it's not even really problematic.
|
On October 03 2017 07:01 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2017 06:25 Slydie wrote:On October 03 2017 05:48 Danglars wrote:On October 03 2017 04:31 Simberto wrote:On October 03 2017 04:15 Danglars wrote:On October 03 2017 03:58 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 03 2017 03:46 Danglars wrote:On October 03 2017 02:42 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 03 2017 02:39 Danglars wrote:When faced with senseless, horrific shootings, people in Washington and on cable news often end up politicizing them in order to argue over gun laws, especially if the location where the incident took place has relatively relaxed regulations. With this morning’s awful mass shooting in Las Vegas, we may not hear such talk, since the suspect, Stephen Paddock, allegedly used a fully automatic weapon, which is illegal no matter what, unless legally purchased and registered prior to May 19, 1986, when they were basically banned under federal law. Of course, it’s possible that he reconfigured a legal semi-automatic weapon to make it fire automatically but that would then make it an illegal weapon.
While it’s true that Nevada does allow people to legally carry firearms in public, only legal weapons are covered by this. Paddock would have broken the law before even pulling the trigger, since—assuming he hadn’t been holding onto this weapon for more than 30 years—the law forbids having the gun in the first place. Not only that, but the shooting took place at the Mandalay Bay, which has a strict no-weapons policy. Such policies technically don’t have the weight of law, meaning they can’t remove your weapon, but they can tell you to leave and have you arrested for trespass if you don’t.
As far as legal firearms in Nevada go, it is legal to carry them openly in public, with exceptions for places like government buildings, airports, schools, and child care facilities. Permits are required to carry a concealed firearm, and they can be denied for a number of reasons, including if the applicant has an open warrant for their arrest, or if they have a criminal history including violence or stalking. In Clark County, where Las Vegas is located, all handguns must be registered. Convicted felons in the state are banned from possessing firearms altogether, as are people who are found to have unlawfully used controlled substances, and people who have been committed to mental health facilities or have been adjudicated mentally ill.
Other horrible attacks sparked debates over what types of guns should or should not be legal, or under what circumstances, but this situation is different. It does not appear that this terrible assault would have been prevented by stronger gun control regulations. Law Newz This is illogical, and not backed up by evidence. You just need to compare the rate of this happening in the USA to countries where guns are banned to see the effect of stricter gun control. Fewer guns = smaller chance of a modded gun showing up. I'm generally not in favor of punishing the lawful gun owners so the guilty ones are less likely to do that much of damage. It's better to see civil rights respected everywhere than to indiscriminately punish owners for the actions of a few. If you want to look to other countries, include crime incidents against an unarmed population. Victims of terrorist violence, of rape, that had to be victimized to get justice after the fact. Any simple google search will show you gun owners in America stopping crime and ensuring peace and security in their life. You have the right to self defense with a gun. Our founders knew that, and thank God. If you want to open the can of worms at migrant violence or terrorist violence in the countries of Europe, by all means go ahead. The police violence response to the Catalonian referendum seems to be a very current example of state tyranny against a disarmed populace. They might be a little more hesitant to beat pollgoers with batons and shoot rubber bullets into crowds, and instead only call it an illegal vote instead of deploying four thousand. How many hundreds are injured because Spain's government knew they could get out the billy clubs and drag & kick people with impunity? Google searches will also show you hundreds of accidental suicides of children across the United States because their parents owned a firearm, but we probably shouldn't be using google searches to judge differential international public health impact. Good thing the NRA lobbied and made it functionally impossible to actually do those public health studies, then, huh? If only the tobacco lobby had managed that. Clearly the solution is to ban guns, because bad parenting of children means you should be unarmed in case of needing to defend yourself. I'm generally against nanny state government, but particularly in the case where you need to punish the law abiding for the reckless and the criminals. On October 03 2017 04:00 hootsushi wrote:On October 03 2017 03:49 Danglars wrote:On October 03 2017 03:44 hootsushi wrote:On October 03 2017 03:28 Danglars wrote:On October 03 2017 03:02 Artisreal wrote:[quote] You appear to draw a false conclusion from whatever you pick from German history. Even an armed poulace would not have resisted the NSDAP's lead in any way. While it is not undisputed by scholars, it's rather safe to assume that most everyone not affected by their early actions had their favourite topic that the Nazis catered. Be it eradicating unemployment, empowerment against the winners of WW1, finding a common scapegoat, ceating a German Superstate. Just look at Göbbels... + Show Spoiler +And think again, whether the supposed disarmament of civilians, which, if you had read the wikipedia article carefully you might have known, or you willingly left it out, targeted Jews as well as Sinti an Roma and not the broad populace, actually happened. Or reconsider your assumption that an armed populace would actually have resisted Hitler and not waved their arms in approval. It's a faulty understanding to propose an ineffective resistance is proof that no armed resistance from an armed populace is ever possible when tyrants come to power. I wouldn't want to be the one telling Jews that it's better for them to die in concentration camps than resisting with violence violence on their persons. What I also find incredibly funny is the following sentence:
[quote]
Lmfao that's exactly what GreenHorizon is complaing about - among other things.
Finally we know you agree on a theoretical level, just not when it comes to PoCs. He's posted that he's a gun owner. I'll assert his right of self-defense. Just make sure to respect everyone's civil rights, yourself, including their second amendment rights. Regardless of color of skin. How about you tell all the families of those who died today that you need that right to carry an AR15, M4A1 or w/e just IN CASE someone would seize power in the future. Are we really talking about that? I did link an article related to why gun control is a poor argument in this case. If you want to tell grieving families you blame the second amendment for their loss, go right ahead. You mean the article that clearly stated that it's only speculated if it's an illegal automatic rifle or just a modified semi-auto rifle, which can be obtained legally? If the person broke existing gun control laws in one way or another? Yeah, that article. Yes, but who cares. You don't seem to (want to) understand the argument. Due to your gun laws, it is easy to get a gun which you can turn into an automatic rifle at home, and then start murdering people with it. No one knows that you broke the gun laws until you start murdering people, at which point you are already murdering people, so it doesn't really matter if you also broke the gun laws. Good admission of the inefficacy of gun control laws. Of course, it’s possible that he reconfigured a legal semi-automatic weapon to make it fire automatically but that would then make it an illegal weapon. Others before me already pointed out how to easy it is to find a guide on youtube how to modify it. Its about saving lives, because the next mass shooting is bound to happen and it will most definitely happen. It's not about finding someone to blame. You really want to tell the ppl these "human sacrifices" are necessary because we have to be prepared to fight the oppression and tyranny, which we don't even know if it ever happens in america? I haven't heard a policy suggestion from you yet about saving lives. I can only speculate you want to amend the constitution to take away the second amendment, or ban only semi-auto rifles so the greater deaths by pistols is magnified further, or would rather innocent victims die from not having access to a self-defense victim. But I'm gathering from the "human sacrifices" that you're engaging in political grandstanding rather than real debate. Also no word yet if you're telling grieving families you blame the second amendment for their loss. Because you certainly started with a bang alleging that was my intent. This discussion is always the same. I am totally fine with blaming your second amendment, because i don't think that constitutions are holy texts which are perfect in their current form, and may never be changed. Your second amendment is anachronistic and gets people killed. I know exactly how this discussion plays out: Some dude in the US kills a bunch of people with a gun. A: Maybe if people in the US didn't have so many guns, there would be less people killed with guns. B: But if people didn't have guns, only criminals have guns! We have to protect ourselves! Also government tyranny! A: Other country which have sensible gun laws don't have this problem with people killing random people with guns in this amount B: American exceptionalism!!! And there is no data from the US that supports that easier access to guns means that people can more easily get a gun to kill people with A: Because it is illegal to gather that data in the US due to laws pushed through by the gun lobby. But look at all these other countries. B: Only american data works! America is so exceptional it can never be compared to another country! Also tyranny! Also, there will be a bunch of weird ideas like that people who are for gun control want to ban all people from having guns. And the weird inability to understand that the availability of legal guns also influences the availability of illegal guns. It never works. So you will have to live with a random dude snapping and grabbing a gun to kill a bunch of people every few days forever. Because there is nothing that can be done. Except in all of the other countries which don't have this problem to this extent. And like "these discussions are always the same," no admission of the asymmetric disadvantages the other countries accept. You get weird ideas like opponents are arguing for "American exceptionalism," "only American data works," "I won't address tyranny, so I'm gonna herp derp 'tyranny' ironically!" We have to punish the law abiding because who knows when a criminal will snap! I should say, "a random dude snapping and grabbing his [randomly modified semi-auto or randomly pre-1986 full auto] gun to go kill a bunch... . It's poisonous and always equates criminals to the largely law-abiding, statistically less likely to cimmit crimes, stopping violent criminals from inflicting injury on their person or loved ones. Other countries might not protect their children from rape gangs, or borders from economic migrants, or their tabloid rags from jihadists, or politicians from hiding New Year's Eve sexual assaults. Hey, their citizens accept the results. I hope their representative governance reflects their citizens' choice of compromises. The New-Years Eve story from Germany has been debunked as actual fake news (not the DT kind.) As for the rapes, I guess you refer to India, and there are major protests there, and yes, they have a problem, but you cant argue the population find the consequences acceptable. School shootings, gun accidents, major attacks like the one we just saw, and generally the INSANE gun-death rate in the US compared to any other comparable country should not be an accepted price for the outdated "right to protect yourself." It is not easy to get rid of the massive gun-problem you have in the US, but you have to start somewhere, and banning rifles that can be modified to be automatic is a reasonable place to start. If not, where is the limit to "acceptable" private weapons? Genades? Trucks with mounted guns? If the government itself is a potential enemy, why not get private torpedoes, fighterjets and anti-aircraft missiles, while you are at it? I still see credible sources that the national press failed to report it, and likely suffered some pressure to do so. It's not my national media, so go change it as you wish. Obviously, the big events are impossible to hide forever, but the loss of credibility may endure forever. I can see why you think it's not an acceptable price, I just think your "should not be" is dangerously ill-informed. The right to defend yourself with a firearm is evergreen. If the editors in Charlie Hebdo want to be unarmed when two terrorists enter, they're free to say the tradeoffs are an acceptable bargain. I'd like to get down to violent crime in the US beyond "Hey, look, they used a gun!!!" Some of that will be on gun safety, police training, and the general problem with crime/criminal street gangs. Not attacking obesity by banning spoons (less people will get fat if they don't have an easy means of conveyance of moving ice cream to mouth.) We have a crime problem in America, zealots want to say we have a gun problem in America. Ditto for mental illness. Take a look at 18 USC 922(g). If you want to talk enforcement of existing laws, I'm all ears. If you want to debate the ease with which some semi-automatic weapons can be modified to effectively be fully automatic, we can have that debate in time. Hopefully more people will have read Heller and the history of governments using disarmament to enact tyranny. I'll try to ignore the torpedoes and fighterjets, because it's clear you started sane and ended with forgetting what "keep and bear arms" means.
I know you might say that correlation doesn't equal causality, but no other developed country has problems with mass shootings like we do. And they have proper gun control. Take the most recent terror attack in the UK. The culprits weren't able to get any guns, had to resort to using their van to kill people, and the police tracked them down and took them out within minutes, without any difficulty. Something like 7 people were killed. Las Vegas saw nearly 600 killed or injured. It takes the math skills of a 4-year old to realize that no, that's not an acceptable price.
Gun control does work. It works in all the rest of the civilized world, it's only the romanticized evangelism of the 2nd amendment that keeps it from working here in America too. When you let your populace own guns freely, the attacker will always have easy access one way or another, and the attacker will always have the element of surprise. Even if half the people at that concert owned a gun, how many would have actually brought it with them? And what would it say about the state of our society if everyone brought their gun to a concert "just in case"? And how do you think unarmed civilians, or even the police, would react to 2 untrained gunmen firing at each other out of the blue? What would you do about the lives already taken before everything descends into complete chaos?
This argument in favor of guns breaks down in so many places it's not even funny.
|
On October 03 2017 07:08 Wulfey_LA wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2017 06:59 LegalLord wrote:On October 03 2017 06:48 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
I'm almost certainly sure that you can't have an armed tank. without weapons its just another veichle. Apparently about 1000 privately owned tanks exist in the US. Don't know how many are armed though. It is almost like it matters whether the thing can shoot when it comes to analyzing his constitutionality and legality. The gun would be a DESTRUCTIVE DEVICE under the national firearms act is pretty much impossible to find a working one. Only on the most sponsored and richest and most connected youtubers can find the occasional guy who managed to fill out the forms for a working AA gun. Each round is itself a destructive device and needs its own registration. The process is rightly a nightmare. Show nested quote +The NFA was passed in the 1934, shortly after Prohibition, “because of all the gangster wars… and it regulated the type of weapons gangsters used,” like machine guns, silencers, and explosives, Morrison said. The act was amended in 1968 to include an amnesty period of 30 to 90 days for anyone interested in acquiring an NFA weapon.
But one can’t just walk into a gun shop and buy a tank, grenade launcher, or suppressor. It requires a ton of paperwork and additional taxation. The regulations are almost a different language.
“As far as registering NFA, you’d have to get the sheriff to sign off on it as well,” Morrison said. “There’s going to be some background done. You’ve got to assure they’re not prohibited [from lawfully owning a firearm] in the first place. There’s some type of control that’s involved when somebody wants to purchase something like this.” https://www.dailydot.com/unclick/operational-tank-for-sale-armslist/EDIT: re intercept, just read some Tracey or Greenwald for a bit. Honestly I am not gonna fight this. You either see what they are doing or you don't.
Figured you were pulling a Trump and calling news you don't like "Fake News", thanks for the clarification.
|
To quote my pro-gun, cop, former marine, GI:JOE stars in his eyes, Charlottesville was a false flag, and the racial problems are manufactured because "everything was fine when we were kids" friend on just bringing up whether or not bump firing should be illegal or not - "Isn't murder already illegal?"
The fuck is wrong with these people.
|
On October 03 2017 07:28 Gahlo wrote:
To quote my pro-gun, cop, former marine, GI:JOE stars in his eyes, Charlottesville was a false flag, and the racial problems are manufactured because "everything was fine when we were kids" friend on just bringing up whether or not bump firing should be illegal or not - "Isn't murder already illegal?"
The fuck is wrong with these people.
They need something to be afraid of.
|
The website media bias fact check lists the intercept's reporting as highly factual.
I don't know about the credibility of the site but they appear to be rather transparent.
They also have a list of 6 things to know about mad shootings in the US
Such as that gun control works. Or background checks work. Must be magic how they came to that conclusion.
An interesting snippet from the short, linked article regarding the effect of background checks in restrictive gun law countries:
Individuals must prove that they do not belong to any “prohibited group,” such as the mentally ill, criminals, children or those at high risk of committing violent crime, such as individuals with a police record of threatening the life of another.
Here’s the bottom line. With these provisions, most U.S. active shooters would have been denied the purchase of a firearm.
The last paragraph is linking to a 20 page research paper and you must pardon me for not having read it.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Neither Greenwald nor The Intercept are fake news. That's a laughable claim.
|
On October 03 2017 07:24 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2017 07:01 Danglars wrote:On October 03 2017 06:25 Slydie wrote:On October 03 2017 05:48 Danglars wrote:On October 03 2017 04:31 Simberto wrote:On October 03 2017 04:15 Danglars wrote:On October 03 2017 03:58 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 03 2017 03:46 Danglars wrote:On October 03 2017 02:42 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 03 2017 02:39 Danglars wrote:[quote] Law Newz This is illogical, and not backed up by evidence. You just need to compare the rate of this happening in the USA to countries where guns are banned to see the effect of stricter gun control. Fewer guns = smaller chance of a modded gun showing up. I'm generally not in favor of punishing the lawful gun owners so the guilty ones are less likely to do that much of damage. It's better to see civil rights respected everywhere than to indiscriminately punish owners for the actions of a few. If you want to look to other countries, include crime incidents against an unarmed population. Victims of terrorist violence, of rape, that had to be victimized to get justice after the fact. Any simple google search will show you gun owners in America stopping crime and ensuring peace and security in their life. You have the right to self defense with a gun. Our founders knew that, and thank God. If you want to open the can of worms at migrant violence or terrorist violence in the countries of Europe, by all means go ahead. The police violence response to the Catalonian referendum seems to be a very current example of state tyranny against a disarmed populace. They might be a little more hesitant to beat pollgoers with batons and shoot rubber bullets into crowds, and instead only call it an illegal vote instead of deploying four thousand. How many hundreds are injured because Spain's government knew they could get out the billy clubs and drag & kick people with impunity? Google searches will also show you hundreds of accidental suicides of children across the United States because their parents owned a firearm, but we probably shouldn't be using google searches to judge differential international public health impact. Good thing the NRA lobbied and made it functionally impossible to actually do those public health studies, then, huh? If only the tobacco lobby had managed that. Clearly the solution is to ban guns, because bad parenting of children means you should be unarmed in case of needing to defend yourself. I'm generally against nanny state government, but particularly in the case where you need to punish the law abiding for the reckless and the criminals. On October 03 2017 04:00 hootsushi wrote:On October 03 2017 03:49 Danglars wrote:On October 03 2017 03:44 hootsushi wrote:On October 03 2017 03:28 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
It's a faulty understanding to propose an ineffective resistance is proof that no armed resistance from an armed populace is ever possible when tyrants come to power. I wouldn't want to be the one telling Jews that it's better for them to die in concentration camps than resisting with violence violence on their persons.
[quote]
He's posted that he's a gun owner. I'll assert his right of self-defense. Just make sure to respect everyone's civil rights, yourself, including their second amendment rights. Regardless of color of skin. How about you tell all the families of those who died today that you need that right to carry an AR15, M4A1 or w/e just IN CASE someone would seize power in the future. Are we really talking about that? I did link an article related to why gun control is a poor argument in this case. If you want to tell grieving families you blame the second amendment for their loss, go right ahead. You mean the article that clearly stated that it's only speculated if it's an illegal automatic rifle or just a modified semi-auto rifle, which can be obtained legally? If the person broke existing gun control laws in one way or another? Yeah, that article. Yes, but who cares. You don't seem to (want to) understand the argument. Due to your gun laws, it is easy to get a gun which you can turn into an automatic rifle at home, and then start murdering people with it. No one knows that you broke the gun laws until you start murdering people, at which point you are already murdering people, so it doesn't really matter if you also broke the gun laws. Good admission of the inefficacy of gun control laws. Of course, it’s possible that he reconfigured a legal semi-automatic weapon to make it fire automatically but that would then make it an illegal weapon. Others before me already pointed out how to easy it is to find a guide on youtube how to modify it. Its about saving lives, because the next mass shooting is bound to happen and it will most definitely happen. It's not about finding someone to blame. You really want to tell the ppl these "human sacrifices" are necessary because we have to be prepared to fight the oppression and tyranny, which we don't even know if it ever happens in america? I haven't heard a policy suggestion from you yet about saving lives. I can only speculate you want to amend the constitution to take away the second amendment, or ban only semi-auto rifles so the greater deaths by pistols is magnified further, or would rather innocent victims die from not having access to a self-defense victim. But I'm gathering from the "human sacrifices" that you're engaging in political grandstanding rather than real debate. Also no word yet if you're telling grieving families you blame the second amendment for their loss. Because you certainly started with a bang alleging that was my intent. This discussion is always the same. I am totally fine with blaming your second amendment, because i don't think that constitutions are holy texts which are perfect in their current form, and may never be changed. Your second amendment is anachronistic and gets people killed. I know exactly how this discussion plays out: Some dude in the US kills a bunch of people with a gun. A: Maybe if people in the US didn't have so many guns, there would be less people killed with guns. B: But if people didn't have guns, only criminals have guns! We have to protect ourselves! Also government tyranny! A: Other country which have sensible gun laws don't have this problem with people killing random people with guns in this amount B: American exceptionalism!!! And there is no data from the US that supports that easier access to guns means that people can more easily get a gun to kill people with A: Because it is illegal to gather that data in the US due to laws pushed through by the gun lobby. But look at all these other countries. B: Only american data works! America is so exceptional it can never be compared to another country! Also tyranny! Also, there will be a bunch of weird ideas like that people who are for gun control want to ban all people from having guns. And the weird inability to understand that the availability of legal guns also influences the availability of illegal guns. It never works. So you will have to live with a random dude snapping and grabbing a gun to kill a bunch of people every few days forever. Because there is nothing that can be done. Except in all of the other countries which don't have this problem to this extent. And like "these discussions are always the same," no admission of the asymmetric disadvantages the other countries accept. You get weird ideas like opponents are arguing for "American exceptionalism," "only American data works," "I won't address tyranny, so I'm gonna herp derp 'tyranny' ironically!" We have to punish the law abiding because who knows when a criminal will snap! I should say, "a random dude snapping and grabbing his [randomly modified semi-auto or randomly pre-1986 full auto] gun to go kill a bunch... . It's poisonous and always equates criminals to the largely law-abiding, statistically less likely to cimmit crimes, stopping violent criminals from inflicting injury on their person or loved ones. Other countries might not protect their children from rape gangs, or borders from economic migrants, or their tabloid rags from jihadists, or politicians from hiding New Year's Eve sexual assaults. Hey, their citizens accept the results. I hope their representative governance reflects their citizens' choice of compromises. The New-Years Eve story from Germany has been debunked as actual fake news (not the DT kind.) As for the rapes, I guess you refer to India, and there are major protests there, and yes, they have a problem, but you cant argue the population find the consequences acceptable. School shootings, gun accidents, major attacks like the one we just saw, and generally the INSANE gun-death rate in the US compared to any other comparable country should not be an accepted price for the outdated "right to protect yourself." It is not easy to get rid of the massive gun-problem you have in the US, but you have to start somewhere, and banning rifles that can be modified to be automatic is a reasonable place to start. If not, where is the limit to "acceptable" private weapons? Genades? Trucks with mounted guns? If the government itself is a potential enemy, why not get private torpedoes, fighterjets and anti-aircraft missiles, while you are at it? I still see credible sources that the national press failed to report it, and likely suffered some pressure to do so. It's not my national media, so go change it as you wish. Obviously, the big events are impossible to hide forever, but the loss of credibility may endure forever. I can see why you think it's not an acceptable price, I just think your "should not be" is dangerously ill-informed. The right to defend yourself with a firearm is evergreen. If the editors in Charlie Hebdo want to be unarmed when two terrorists enter, they're free to say the tradeoffs are an acceptable bargain. I'd like to get down to violent crime in the US beyond "Hey, look, they used a gun!!!" Some of that will be on gun safety, police training, and the general problem with crime/criminal street gangs. Not attacking obesity by banning spoons (less people will get fat if they don't have an easy means of conveyance of moving ice cream to mouth.) We have a crime problem in America, zealots want to say we have a gun problem in America. Ditto for mental illness. Take a look at 18 USC 922(g). If you want to talk enforcement of existing laws, I'm all ears. If you want to debate the ease with which some semi-automatic weapons can be modified to effectively be fully automatic, we can have that debate in time. Hopefully more people will have read Heller and the history of governments using disarmament to enact tyranny. I'll try to ignore the torpedoes and fighterjets, because it's clear you started sane and ended with forgetting what "keep and bear arms" means. I know you might say that correlation doesn't equal causality, but no other developed country has problems with mass shootings like we do. And they have proper gun control. Take the most recent terror attack in the UK. The culprits weren't able to get any guns, had to resort to using their van to kill people, and the police tracked them down and took them out within minutes, without any difficulty. Something like 7 people were killed. Las Vegas saw nearly 600 killed or injured. It takes the math skills of a 4-year old to realize that no, that's not an acceptable price.
Take Nice. Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel did not have a gun but used a van to kill 86 people. It is in a nation with "proper gun control." How does your post-4-year-old math skills add up 86, and "resort to using their van to kill people," factor into the equation again?
Gun control does work. It works in all the rest of the civilized world, it's only the romanticized evangelism of the 2nd amendment that keeps it from working here in America too. When you let your populace own guns freely, the attacker will always have easy access one way or another, and the attacker will always have the element of surprise. Even if half the people at that concert owned a gun, how many would have actually brought it with them? And what would it say about the state of our society if everyone brought their gun to a concert "just in case"? And how do you think unarmed civilians, or even the police, would react to 2 untrained gunmen firing at each other out of the blue? What would you do about the lives already taken before everything descends into complete chaos?
This argument in favor of guns breaks down in so many places it's not even funny.
Romanticized evangelism, and the poverty of an actual force to argue for the second amendment's repeal, clearly.
I'm inclined to say generally law-abiding concert goers would leave their guns outside, considering Mandalay Bay casino has a strict no-weapons policy.
I'm very much in favor of denying the adding of "knows targets are unarmed" to possessing the "element of surprise." We could do this all day at how many areas your arguments and hypotheticals break down.
|
In the four decades that the modern, militant gun rights movement has been around, one of its most significant victories occurred not at the ballot box, on a president's special signing desk, or in the courtroom. Rather, one of the biggest battles pro-gun partisans have ever won took place in the minds of millions of Americans.
Since the late 1970's, the National Rifle Association and other firearm advocates have successfully fought to make armed self defense increasingly acceptable in everyday life. A wealth of survey data—the most recent of which came via a major Pew poll released last month—shows that Americans have grown more comfortable with the toting of concealed guns in public. Self defense is now the most common reason cited for owning a firearm, leading handguns to become the most popular kind of weapon in the American arsenal. Those attitudes and behaviors mark major shifts: In the mid 1990s, Americans primarily owned guns for recreation, and as recently as 2005, a strong plurality thought only police officers should carry guns in public.
At the heart of this campaign for the hearts, minds, and holsters of America has been an article of faith that the NRA and its allies have preached since at least the 1990s: that people enhance public safety by carrying guns to defend themselves. Economist John Lott first developed this "More Guns, Less Crime" theory in his 1998 book of the same title, and has since popularized it via frequent legislative testimony and op-eds. The NRA has deployed Lott's work to beat back calls for new curbs on guns and their use. In the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, when NRA leader Wayne LaPierre made his infamous assertion that the "only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun," he was tapping into the already well-seeded notion that hidden guns at arm's reach of their private owners increase public safety.
It's a powerful, seductive idea, particularly to Americans who favor personal liberty over communitarian ideals. It's also completely wrong, according to a new analysis of nearly 40 years' worth of crime data.
In a new working paper published on June 21 by the National Bureau of Economic Research, academics at Stanford Law School ran that data through four different statistical models—including one developed by Lott for More Guns, Less Crime—and came back with an unambiguous conclusion: states that made it easier for their citizens to go armed in public had higher levels of non-fatal violent crime than those states that restricted the right to carry. The exception was the narrower category of murder; there, the researchers determined that any effect on homicide rates by expanded gun-carry policies is statistically insignificant.
While other studies conducted since 1994 have undermined Lott's thesis, the new paper is the most comprehensive and assertive debunking of the more-guns-less-crime formula.
"For years, the question has been, is there any public safety benefit to right to carry laws? That is now settled," said paper's lead author, John Donohue. "The answer is no."...
The Good Guy with a Gun Theory, Debunked
|
@danglars
You're too deep into thinking about what happens if a malevolent person obtains a gun in an unarmed society.
What you actually have to think about is what the armed society does to itself. Which is, in the case of the US, much worse.
|
I think if 500 people in the audience pulled their concealed handguns and lit up that casino in self defense a lot of lives would be spared /s
|
On October 03 2017 07:28 Gahlo wrote:
To quote my pro-gun, cop, former marine, GI:JOE stars in his eyes, Charlottesville was a false flag, and the racial problems are manufactured because "everything was fine when we were kids" friend on just bringing up whether or not bump firing should be illegal or not - "Isn't murder already illegal?"
The fuck is wrong with these people.
most people are stupid, and have been fed a diet of nonsense; they just don't always get an opportunity to show it.
lots of people get fed bad narratives and believe them, because it's how they were raised/taught.
|
On October 03 2017 07:37 Danglars wrote:
I'm inclined to say generally law-abiding concert goers would leave their guns outside, considering Mandalay Bay casino has a strict no-weapons policy.
I'm very much in favor of denying the adding of "knows targets are unarmed" to possessing the "element of surprise." We could do this all day at how many areas your arguments and hypotheticals break down.
Congratulations, you "got me". Now tell me, how does that make it better? Tell me how the element of surprise doesn't apply when you're not dealing with a no-guns policy. Describe to me a scenario in which you have someone who knows there will be a shooting, because he's the fucking shooter, versus someone who doesn't know this, because they're not a shooter, and at best can only suspect that there will be a shooting, where the shooter doesn't have the advantage?
While we're at it: tell me how any of the above would be safer than if nobody has access to guns in the first place.
|
On October 03 2017 07:50 Artisreal wrote:
@danglars
You're too deep into thinking about what happens if a malevolent person obtains a gun in an unarmed society.
What you actually have to think about is what the armed society does to itself. Which is, in the case of the US, much worse.
If? We have enough malevolent persons obtaining guns in an unarmed society to not have to wonder what happens ‘if.’
I’m missing some information on why this is your diagnosis, why it’s preferable to devote more attention to your preference, and why everything works out to be worse if I don’t accede.
|
On October 03 2017 07:02 Wulfey_LA wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2017 06:50 Artisreal wrote:
Was there any fake news from "leftists" regarding the shooting?
The news sources I frequent only talk about the right appropriating the incident, labelling the shooter either Muslim or trumpet hater. The hard anti-war left from 10 years ago was co-opted by the broader Russian disinformation sphere. If you want the lefty fake news take you need to talk to Jill Stein, the Intercept, Michael Tracey, Glenn Greenwald types that always manage to come up with a whataboutism to smear America and defend Russia. The progressive/liberal left hates these guys and feuds with them all the time. This limits the formation and propagation of fake news on the left since those fights tend to reveal when something is completely bullshit. Whereas the right has a propagation source for things they want to hear (Infowars), and a ready echo chamber (FOX, AMRadio, righty twitter like Crowder) who can repeat variations of the fake story that have just enough of the bullshit removed to keep the audience agitated. Here is a great example. Expect to hear more anti-Antifa stuff throughout the week, but with just some of the facts here removed.
Relevant from today.
A /pol/ thread became the number one search result for the shooter for a little while. These are the people who's disruptive tech have replaced traditional media. They got a handle on this.
|
On October 03 2017 07:13 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2017 06:30 Logo wrote:On October 03 2017 06:27 Danglars wrote:On October 03 2017 06:10 Logo wrote:On October 03 2017 05:54 Danglars wrote:On October 03 2017 04:21 Logo wrote:Clearly the solution is to ban guns, because bad parenting of children means you should be unarmed in case of needing to defend yourself. I'm generally against nanny state government, but particularly in the case where you need to punish the law abiding for the reckless and the criminals.
Responses like this are incredibly disingenuous. You're already abiding by or complicit with restrictions on what you're arguing is a civil right here. There are many existing gun restrictions in an effort to curtail the reckless and criminals. Is your ideological view that existing gun laws (i.e ANY law controlling guns) are unacceptable restrictions of your rights? If not then you agree there's a line dividing acceptable restrictions from unacceptable ones. But you defend your position, and the current line, as if it is ideologically pure and thus unbendable. It's already a bent position, some people think the line should be elsewhere. Even if you disagree it doesn't lead you to the arguments you are making. It's really no different than other topics where people do the same thing ("I only support completely free speech, but support trademarks and copyright laws!") Right back at you for ignoring the disingenuous "what about the children?" calls. You snipped it as a response, but that was tailored to child accidents, not some wide detailed ideological position. You'll have to do better or I'll get the impression you're looking to snip responses to emotional pleas to pretend it represents the full argument. Any real response to childhood safety? I've drawn two acceptable restrictions of my gun rights. If you didn't bother to read my prior interactions on this topic in the last pages, maybe I'm disinclined to fight the wind with your new arguments made in ignorance. I didn't make any "What about the children calls?" I didn't make any sort of actual claim on gun control or children protection, I merely pointed out how you are admitting to accepting some gun control measures but then digging your heels in deep on some ideological measure in any sort of further debate as if you've drawn up some ideologically pure stance where any gun control is abhorrent because that frames the debate where you don't need to defend your views on their merit and can instead just say, "punish the law abiding for the reckless and the criminals" as if you *aren't* doing the exact same thing with the bits of gun control you accept and/or are find it too uncomfortable to argue against. You quoted my response to someone using accidental suicides of children against citing cases where a lawful gun owner stopped crime. You're either ignoring that framing out of straight ignorance or disingenuity. If you want to make a similar argument using the children to debate gun control, have at it. I can't see much use in debating ideologically pure stances when you missed my restrictions and take the context of responses out of the picture. Make an actual claim, ask an actual stance-related question, or share your own ideology. I will be incredibly dismissive if you allege disingenuity and skip context and previous posts on the matter. And in both my initial response, and the secondary response I pointed out the part of the quote that I felt most relevant to how you approach the debate: "punish the law abiding for the reckless and the criminals" because it is the most concise way you put your viewpoint (and the rest of your comments supported this as a statement). I included the surrounding context so I wasn't quoting out of context (I only trimmed the quote at all because it included 2 embedded quotes and didn't want to make a rats nest of out how the quoted text appears). And you got my viewpoint that using the children in this case to argue against lawful defense is an absurd justification. If googling accidental suicides of children is your game, you're playing an awful game. I'd say the same if he cited that rationale for banning bathtubs or tug-of-war. You're taking this to be some disingenuous statement of ideology when it is dishing back a pointed and flippant remark at a pathetic response to something I wrote. You fail to prove your "feelings" about how I approach the debate. You fail to prove to me you just aren't seeking to quote out of context to make your job easier. I'm still wondering if you're about to make the case that the accidental suicides of children is a cogent argument against the cases of gun-owners stopping crime and preventing death and injury to loved ones and the surrounding populace. You're really cherry-picking here and I want to know if you're going to arrive at a cogent argument, other than "Let me choose these two sentences to be indicative of my feelings that you're arguing in bad faith in general."
You said the part I focused on multiple times in different ways.
On October 03 2017 03:46 Danglars wrote:
I'm generally not in favor of punishing the lawful gun owners so the guilty ones are less likely to do that much of damage. It's better to see civil rights respected everywhere than to indiscriminately punish owners for the actions of a few.
On October 03 2017 04:15 Danglars wrote:
I haven't heard a policy suggestion from you yet about saving lives. I can only speculate you want to amend the constitution to take away the second amendment, or ban only semi-auto rifles so the greater deaths by pistols is magnified further, or would rather innocent victims die from not having access to a self-defense victim. But I'm gathering from the "human sacrifices" that you're engaging in political grandstanding rather than real debate.
It all amounts to framing any sort of gun control as "punishing the law abiding" which is ridiculous non-statement that I can only imagine is there to try and harden an ideological position rather than be reasonable.
But then again how can I be surprised? You're basically implying in these past few pages that armed people have a chance against a prepared shooter 13 (?) stories up... in the dark... in a panicked crowded area... during a noisy concert...
|
On October 03 2017 08:19 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2017 07:13 Danglars wrote:On October 03 2017 06:30 Logo wrote:On October 03 2017 06:27 Danglars wrote:On October 03 2017 06:10 Logo wrote:On October 03 2017 05:54 Danglars wrote:On October 03 2017 04:21 Logo wrote:Clearly the solution is to ban guns, because bad parenting of children means you should be unarmed in case of needing to defend yourself. I'm generally against nanny state government, but particularly in the case where you need to punish the law abiding for the reckless and the criminals.
Responses like this are incredibly disingenuous. You're already abiding by or complicit with restrictions on what you're arguing is a civil right here. There are many existing gun restrictions in an effort to curtail the reckless and criminals. Is your ideological view that existing gun laws (i.e ANY law controlling guns) are unacceptable restrictions of your rights? If not then you agree there's a line dividing acceptable restrictions from unacceptable ones. But you defend your position, and the current line, as if it is ideologically pure and thus unbendable. It's already a bent position, some people think the line should be elsewhere. Even if you disagree it doesn't lead you to the arguments you are making. It's really no different than other topics where people do the same thing ("I only support completely free speech, but support trademarks and copyright laws!") Right back at you for ignoring the disingenuous "what about the children?" calls. You snipped it as a response, but that was tailored to child accidents, not some wide detailed ideological position. You'll have to do better or I'll get the impression you're looking to snip responses to emotional pleas to pretend it represents the full argument. Any real response to childhood safety? I've drawn two acceptable restrictions of my gun rights. If you didn't bother to read my prior interactions on this topic in the last pages, maybe I'm disinclined to fight the wind with your new arguments made in ignorance. I didn't make any "What about the children calls?" I didn't make any sort of actual claim on gun control or children protection, I merely pointed out how you are admitting to accepting some gun control measures but then digging your heels in deep on some ideological measure in any sort of further debate as if you've drawn up some ideologically pure stance where any gun control is abhorrent because that frames the debate where you don't need to defend your views on their merit and can instead just say, "punish the law abiding for the reckless and the criminals" as if you *aren't* doing the exact same thing with the bits of gun control you accept and/or are find it too uncomfortable to argue against. You quoted my response to someone using accidental suicides of children against citing cases where a lawful gun owner stopped crime. You're either ignoring that framing out of straight ignorance or disingenuity. If you want to make a similar argument using the children to debate gun control, have at it. I can't see much use in debating ideologically pure stances when you missed my restrictions and take the context of responses out of the picture. Make an actual claim, ask an actual stance-related question, or share your own ideology. I will be incredibly dismissive if you allege disingenuity and skip context and previous posts on the matter. And in both my initial response, and the secondary response I pointed out the part of the quote that I felt most relevant to how you approach the debate: "punish the law abiding for the reckless and the criminals" because it is the most concise way you put your viewpoint (and the rest of your comments supported this as a statement). I included the surrounding context so I wasn't quoting out of context (I only trimmed the quote at all because it included 2 embedded quotes and didn't want to make a rats nest of out how the quoted text appears). And you got my viewpoint that using the children in this case to argue against lawful defense is an absurd justification. If googling accidental suicides of children is your game, you're playing an awful game. I'd say the same if he cited that rationale for banning bathtubs or tug-of-war. You're taking this to be some disingenuous statement of ideology when it is dishing back a pointed and flippant remark at a pathetic response to something I wrote. You fail to prove your "feelings" about how I approach the debate. You fail to prove to me you just aren't seeking to quote out of context to make your job easier. I'm still wondering if you're about to make the case that the accidental suicides of children is a cogent argument against the cases of gun-owners stopping crime and preventing death and injury to loved ones and the surrounding populace. You're really cherry-picking here and I want to know if you're going to arrive at a cogent argument, other than "Let me choose these two sentences to be indicative of my feelings that you're arguing in bad faith in general." You said the part I focused on multiple times in different ways. Show nested quote +On October 03 2017 03:46 Danglars wrote:
I'm generally not in favor of punishing the lawful gun owners so the guilty ones are less likely to do that much of damage. It's better to see civil rights respected everywhere than to indiscriminately punish owners for the actions of a few.
Show nested quote +On October 03 2017 04:15 Danglars wrote:
I haven't heard a policy suggestion from you yet about saving lives. I can only speculate you want to amend the constitution to take away the second amendment, or ban only semi-auto rifles so the greater deaths by pistols is magnified further, or would rather innocent victims die from not having access to a self-defense victim. But I'm gathering from the "human sacrifices" that you're engaging in political grandstanding rather than real debate. It all amounts to framing any sort of gun control as "punishing the law abiding" which is ridiculous non-statement that I can only imagine is there to try and harden an ideological position rather than be reasonable. But then again how can I be surprised? You're basically implying in these past few pages that armed people have a chance against a prepared shooter 13 (?) stories up... in the dark... in a panicked crowded area... during a noisy concert...
In response to:
Think of the children instead of the gun owners that stopped crime.
An article on gun control policy is illogical (?) because we need to compare to Europe.
It’s about saving lives and human sacrifices.
Yeah I’ll fling back an equally partisan reframe every time. You see, there’s very little point expanding every response into big policy declarations when the style of response is anything but reasonable. I understand your true feelings of the matter are closer to the gun control epithets than the pro-2nd amendment crowd. You agree your way of seeing the world is the right way, and others are the wrong way or disingenuous. You confound further by not reading up on my very recent posts on the restrictions I consider proper. So “declare disingenuous” + “didn’t read today’s thread interactions” = I’m disinclined to give a longer substantive response to why affecting law abiding citizens with guns is an important consideration.
I have no intention of defending my position based on ideological purity. I’ve since elaborated on my broad agreement with Heller on limits. It’s just so few eagerly dismiss the American civil right and constitutional tradition of meaningful self defense against criminals and a tyrannical government and I feel it’s necessary to point out how they’re being brushed aside. You’re picking the victims of mass shootings (and all attendant already criminal violations of law) over helpless victims if all guns are banned (some argue from Europe) or people’s choice in a self defense rifle with higher than 10-round magazine (if you want to ignore the higher deaths by handguns across the US) for their defense/defense of citizens against a ridiculously oppressive government.
|
That face when you made a propagandist wet dream and didn't even notice.
Payment: Facebook says some of the ads were paid for in Russian currency, but it can't use that as an indicator of suspicious activity necessarily because "the overwhelming majority" of advertisers who pay in Russian currency aren't doing anything wrong
Ok, like political ads paid for in foreign currency should be a red flag.
|
Totally, everyone not american should have to open an US Dollar account to ever purchase anything from a, mind you, world wide active company.
How dare they take that foreign money...
If this is the height of this issue, you better just stop it right now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
