Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action.
On August 31 2014 04:28 Incognoto wrote: Why on earth would you ban alcohol? Genuine question, which imo has something to do with the topic at hand, because your answer is very likely to apply to firearms as well.
It has no practical use outside of getting drunk and causes a lot of deaths. Firearms cause many deaths and they do not defend a house as well as a good alarm system or a dog. I guess you cannot use the alarm system as a toy though.
That is some absolutely atrocious logic and I don't think I'm even going to waste time arguing against that.
Still, I'll bite. Why on earth would you ban something on the grounds that it isn't "practical"? Do you have a picture of Stalin above your bed?
The fact remains that alcohol is something that a lot of people enjoy and drink responsibly. They'll drink with good food, they'll drink with friends, they'll get a bit tipsy but who the hell cares since being tipsy is fun. As long as you don't drink excessively, you are fine. As long as you don't drink and drive, others are also fine. So who the hell are you to say others shouldn't drink? Because stupid people won't be fine? Is that really good enough to ban something? That's some really crazy talk right there, you should be careful.
^ This exact reasoning is pretty much applicable to firearms as well.
Banning something on the grounds that stupid people might cause problems is NEVER a good thing to do.
E: Also disregarding the usage of guns for hunting, sport shooting, protection and pest control is incredibly arrogant. You don't care about hunting or sport shooting, so you should prevent others from having those interests. Screw you, that's terribly arrogant. You also live in a safe, European urban area, so screw the need to shoot at dangerous animals, right? Or intruders for that matter. People are using their own, limited, views as a reason to ban firearms. It's incredible how narrow-minded some people can be.
Good. Now explain me why you define stalinist every single country who bans drugs. Also if alcohol caused problems only to those who used them your reasoning would be correct but we both know it is not the case. What if i am just walking around and a drunk guy drives over me? I do drink but i would be willing to sacrify this freedom of mine so that stupid people who abuse alcohol will not be able to hurt anyone (it is kinda impossible to prevent people from drinking as i said in a previous post. I am merely stating he reasons you should ban alcohol).
On a side note tone down a bit the hatred. Don't compare me to criminals and immature edgy stuff like that.
But that is edgy. People who harbor such views give me goosebumps and it's these kinds of ideas that make me lose faith in humanity. I do not want to be micromanaged by a government telling me what's good and what's not. I think that I'm smart enough to figure that out by myself. I know that abusing alcohol is dangerous to both me and others. So I'm not going to abuse it. Telling me not to drink for those reasons is basically telling me that I'm an idiot with no sense of responsibility. That, to me, would be disgusting. I would rather die than live a life where I am not responsible for my actions. Luckily, most governments do not harbor such dangerous views.
Drugs is a different matter in that they're much more addictive. Yes, so is alcohol, yet much less so. You can drink responsibly without problem. You can't do cocaine or heroine "casually". That is serious shit that will consume your life, it makes sense to ban that. Alcohol does not fit that category and frankly, neither do firearms.
Nonetheless, this does a good job at explaining why I feel a blanket ban on firearms is bad. I feel bad, to be perfectly frank, that Europeans let themselves get trod on in such a way by governments. Then again, most Europeans tend to not care about things like responsibility, which I suppose is a cultural choice.
Many banned drugs do less damage and are less addictive than alcohol though. You also purposely ignored the fact that alcohol can cause death to someone who is not the user. I will just repeat that i would not ban alcohol simply because it would be impossible to impose such a ban. I drink every week and i have never gone as far as being drunk but i would give up this right of drinking in order to be safer from those who irresponsibly use it. It is just a matter of values. I value the more constant benefit alcohol gives to me as too low compared to the (unlikely) damage i will receive from someone who is not quite as responsible with it as I am.
On a side note: your loss of faith in humanity, as you sensationalistically called it, was due to a strange and unwarranted interpratation of my posts.
On August 31 2014 04:28 Incognoto wrote: Why on earth would you ban alcohol? Genuine question, which imo has something to do with the topic at hand, because your answer is very likely to apply to firearms as well.
It has no practical use outside of getting drunk and causes a lot of deaths. Firearms cause many deaths and they do not defend a house as well as a good alarm system or a dog. I guess you cannot use the alarm system as a toy though.
That is some absolutely atrocious logic and I don't think I'm even going to waste time arguing against that.
Still, I'll bite. Why on earth would you ban something on the grounds that it isn't "practical"? Do you have a picture of Stalin above your bed?
The fact remains that alcohol is something that a lot of people enjoy and drink responsibly. They'll drink with good food, they'll drink with friends, they'll get a bit tipsy but who the hell cares since being tipsy is fun. As long as you don't drink excessively, you are fine. As long as you don't drink and drive, others are also fine. So who the hell are you to say others shouldn't drink? Because stupid people won't be fine? Is that really good enough to ban something? That's some really crazy talk right there, you should be careful.
^ This exact reasoning is pretty much applicable to firearms as well.
Banning something on the grounds that stupid people might cause problems is NEVER a good thing to do.
E: Also disregarding the usage of guns for hunting, sport shooting, protection and pest control is incredibly arrogant. You don't care about hunting or sport shooting, so you should prevent others from having those interests. Screw you, that's terribly arrogant. You also live in a safe, European urban area, so screw the need to shoot at dangerous animals, right? Or intruders for that matter. People are using their own, limited, views as a reason to ban firearms. It's incredible how narrow-minded some people can be.
Good. Now explain me why you define stalinist every single country who bans drugs. Also if alcohol caused problems only to those who used them your reasoning would be correct but we both know it is not the case. What if i am just walking around and a drunk guy drives over me? I do drink but i would be willing to sacrify this freedom of mine so that stupid people who abuse alcohol will not be able to hurt anyone (it is kinda impossible to prevent people from drinking as i said in a previous post. I am merely stating he reasons you should ban alcohol).
On a side note tone down a bit the hatred. Don't compare me to criminals and immature edgy stuff like that.
But that is edgy. People who harbor such views give me goosebumps and it's these kinds of ideas that make me lose faith in humanity. I do not want to be micromanaged by a government telling me what's good and what's not. I think that I'm smart enough to figure that out by myself. I know that abusing alcohol is dangerous to both me and others. So I'm not going to abuse it. Telling me not to drink for those reasons is basically telling me that I'm an idiot with no sense of responsibility. That, to me, would be disgusting. I would rather die than live a life where I am not responsible for my actions. Luckily, most governments do not harbor such dangerous views.
Drugs is a different matter in that they're much more addictive. Yes, so is alcohol, yet much less so. You can drink responsibly without problem. You can't do cocaine or heroine "casually". That is serious shit that will consume your life, it makes sense to ban that. Alcohol does not fit that category and frankly, neither do firearms.
Nonetheless, this does a good job at explaining why I feel a blanket ban on firearms is bad. I feel bad, to be perfectly frank, that Europeans let themselves get trod on in such a way by governments. Then again, most Europeans tend to not care about things like responsibility, which I suppose is a cultural choice.
Many banned drugs do less damage and are less addictive than alcohol though.
Not only that, but government safety laws is not micromanagement.
Saying a ban on guns/alcohol is governmental micromanagement is like saying governmental bans on food safety regulations is governmental micromanagement.
Safety laws are simply that--safety laws. Be it age descrimination on workers below 16 or drivers licenses, or gun regulation, or a legal drinking: they are all governmental safety laws.
Saying europeans are trodded by their government because there is a disagreement about how much regulation should exist is dishonest and childish.
On August 31 2014 04:28 Incognoto wrote: Why on earth would you ban alcohol? Genuine question, which imo has something to do with the topic at hand, because your answer is very likely to apply to firearms as well.
It has no practical use outside of getting drunk and causes a lot of deaths. Firearms cause many deaths and they do not defend a house as well as a good alarm system or a dog. I guess you cannot use the alarm system as a toy though.
That is some absolutely atrocious logic and I don't think I'm even going to waste time arguing against that.
Still, I'll bite. Why on earth would you ban something on the grounds that it isn't "practical"? Do you have a picture of Stalin above your bed?
The fact remains that alcohol is something that a lot of people enjoy and drink responsibly. They'll drink with good food, they'll drink with friends, they'll get a bit tipsy but who the hell cares since being tipsy is fun. As long as you don't drink excessively, you are fine. As long as you don't drink and drive, others are also fine. So who the hell are you to say others shouldn't drink? Because stupid people won't be fine? Is that really good enough to ban something? That's some really crazy talk right there, you should be careful.
^ This exact reasoning is pretty much applicable to firearms as well.
Banning something on the grounds that stupid people might cause problems is NEVER a good thing to do.
E: Also disregarding the usage of guns for hunting, sport shooting, protection and pest control is incredibly arrogant. You don't care about hunting or sport shooting, so you should prevent others from having those interests. Screw you, that's terribly arrogant. You also live in a safe, European urban area, so screw the need to shoot at dangerous animals, right? Or intruders for that matter. People are using their own, limited, views as a reason to ban firearms. It's incredible how narrow-minded some people can be.
Good. Now explain me why you define stalinist every single country who bans drugs. Also if alcohol caused problems only to those who used them your reasoning would be correct but we both know it is not the case. What if i am just walking around and a drunk guy drives over me? I do drink but i would be willing to sacrify this freedom of mine so that stupid people who abuse alcohol will not be able to hurt anyone (it is kinda impossible to prevent people from drinking as i said in a previous post. I am merely stating he reasons you should ban alcohol).
On a side note tone down a bit the hatred. Don't compare me to criminals and immature edgy stuff like that.
But that is edgy. People who harbor such views give me goosebumps and it's these kinds of ideas that make me lose faith in humanity. I do not want to be micromanaged by a government telling me what's good and what's not. I think that I'm smart enough to figure that out by myself. I know that abusing alcohol is dangerous to both me and others. So I'm not going to abuse it. Telling me not to drink for those reasons is basically telling me that I'm an idiot with no sense of responsibility. That, to me, would be disgusting. I would rather die than live a life where I am not responsible for my actions. Luckily, most governments do not harbor such dangerous views.
Drugs is a different matter in that they're much more addictive. Yes, so is alcohol, yet much less so. You can drink responsibly without problem. You can't do cocaine or heroine "casually". That is serious shit that will consume your life, it makes sense to ban that. Alcohol does not fit that category and frankly, neither do firearms.
Nonetheless, this does a good job at explaining why I feel a blanket ban on firearms is bad. I feel bad, to be perfectly frank, that Europeans let themselves get trod on in such a way by governments. Then again, most Europeans tend to not care about things like responsibility, which I suppose is a cultural choice.
You also purposely ignored the fact that alcohol can cause death to someone who is not the user.
The same goes for a lot of things including such basic stuff like cars. Giving up the right to do something because there is a small chance of abuse is, to put it gently, unwise.
On August 31 2014 04:28 Incognoto wrote: Why on earth would you ban alcohol? Genuine question, which imo has something to do with the topic at hand, because your answer is very likely to apply to firearms as well.
It has no practical use outside of getting drunk and causes a lot of deaths. Firearms cause many deaths and they do not defend a house as well as a good alarm system or a dog. I guess you cannot use the alarm system as a toy though.
That is some absolutely atrocious logic and I don't think I'm even going to waste time arguing against that.
Still, I'll bite. Why on earth would you ban something on the grounds that it isn't "practical"? Do you have a picture of Stalin above your bed?
The fact remains that alcohol is something that a lot of people enjoy and drink responsibly. They'll drink with good food, they'll drink with friends, they'll get a bit tipsy but who the hell cares since being tipsy is fun. As long as you don't drink excessively, you are fine. As long as you don't drink and drive, others are also fine. So who the hell are you to say others shouldn't drink? Because stupid people won't be fine? Is that really good enough to ban something? That's some really crazy talk right there, you should be careful.
^ This exact reasoning is pretty much applicable to firearms as well.
Banning something on the grounds that stupid people might cause problems is NEVER a good thing to do.
E: Also disregarding the usage of guns for hunting, sport shooting, protection and pest control is incredibly arrogant. You don't care about hunting or sport shooting, so you should prevent others from having those interests. Screw you, that's terribly arrogant. You also live in a safe, European urban area, so screw the need to shoot at dangerous animals, right? Or intruders for that matter. People are using their own, limited, views as a reason to ban firearms. It's incredible how narrow-minded some people can be.
Good. Now explain me why you define stalinist every single country who bans drugs. Also if alcohol caused problems only to those who used them your reasoning would be correct but we both know it is not the case. What if i am just walking around and a drunk guy drives over me? I do drink but i would be willing to sacrify this freedom of mine so that stupid people who abuse alcohol will not be able to hurt anyone (it is kinda impossible to prevent people from drinking as i said in a previous post. I am merely stating he reasons you should ban alcohol).
On a side note tone down a bit the hatred. Don't compare me to criminals and immature edgy stuff like that.
But that is edgy. People who harbor such views give me goosebumps and it's these kinds of ideas that make me lose faith in humanity. I do not want to be micromanaged by a government telling me what's good and what's not. I think that I'm smart enough to figure that out by myself. I know that abusing alcohol is dangerous to both me and others. So I'm not going to abuse it. Telling me not to drink for those reasons is basically telling me that I'm an idiot with no sense of responsibility. That, to me, would be disgusting. I would rather die than live a life where I am not responsible for my actions. Luckily, most governments do not harbor such dangerous views.
Drugs is a different matter in that they're much more addictive. Yes, so is alcohol, yet much less so. You can drink responsibly without problem. You can't do cocaine or heroine "casually". That is serious shit that will consume your life, it makes sense to ban that. Alcohol does not fit that category and frankly, neither do firearms.
Nonetheless, this does a good job at explaining why I feel a blanket ban on firearms is bad. I feel bad, to be perfectly frank, that Europeans let themselves get trod on in such a way by governments. Then again, most Europeans tend to not care about things like responsibility, which I suppose is a cultural choice.
You also purposely ignored the fact that alcohol can cause death to someone who is not the user.
The same goes for a lot of things including such basic stuff like cars. Giving up the right to do something because there is a small chance of abuse is, to put it gently, unwise.
Cars are highly regulated.
Not only do you have to be on a registry, get regular id checks, be at the discretion of officers as to how you use the car, where you keep the car, and who you have in the car, you also must get regular evaluations, insurance, and have hundreds of safety laws pressed upon you at every turn.
If car laws were being projected into gun laws 2nd amendment nuts would go ape shit.
On August 31 2014 04:28 Incognoto wrote: Why on earth would you ban alcohol? Genuine question, which imo has something to do with the topic at hand, because your answer is very likely to apply to firearms as well.
It has no practical use outside of getting drunk and causes a lot of deaths. Firearms cause many deaths and they do not defend a house as well as a good alarm system or a dog. I guess you cannot use the alarm system as a toy though.
That is some absolutely atrocious logic and I don't think I'm even going to waste time arguing against that.
Still, I'll bite. Why on earth would you ban something on the grounds that it isn't "practical"? Do you have a picture of Stalin above your bed?
The fact remains that alcohol is something that a lot of people enjoy and drink responsibly. They'll drink with good food, they'll drink with friends, they'll get a bit tipsy but who the hell cares since being tipsy is fun. As long as you don't drink excessively, you are fine. As long as you don't drink and drive, others are also fine. So who the hell are you to say others shouldn't drink? Because stupid people won't be fine? Is that really good enough to ban something? That's some really crazy talk right there, you should be careful.
^ This exact reasoning is pretty much applicable to firearms as well.
Banning something on the grounds that stupid people might cause problems is NEVER a good thing to do.
E: Also disregarding the usage of guns for hunting, sport shooting, protection and pest control is incredibly arrogant. You don't care about hunting or sport shooting, so you should prevent others from having those interests. Screw you, that's terribly arrogant. You also live in a safe, European urban area, so screw the need to shoot at dangerous animals, right? Or intruders for that matter. People are using their own, limited, views as a reason to ban firearms. It's incredible how narrow-minded some people can be.
Good. Now explain me why you define stalinist every single country who bans drugs. Also if alcohol caused problems only to those who used them your reasoning would be correct but we both know it is not the case. What if i am just walking around and a drunk guy drives over me? I do drink but i would be willing to sacrify this freedom of mine so that stupid people who abuse alcohol will not be able to hurt anyone (it is kinda impossible to prevent people from drinking as i said in a previous post. I am merely stating he reasons you should ban alcohol).
On a side note tone down a bit the hatred. Don't compare me to criminals and immature edgy stuff like that.
But that is edgy. People who harbor such views give me goosebumps and it's these kinds of ideas that make me lose faith in humanity. I do not want to be micromanaged by a government telling me what's good and what's not. I think that I'm smart enough to figure that out by myself. I know that abusing alcohol is dangerous to both me and others. So I'm not going to abuse it. Telling me not to drink for those reasons is basically telling me that I'm an idiot with no sense of responsibility. That, to me, would be disgusting. I would rather die than live a life where I am not responsible for my actions. Luckily, most governments do not harbor such dangerous views.
Drugs is a different matter in that they're much more addictive. Yes, so is alcohol, yet much less so. You can drink responsibly without problem. You can't do cocaine or heroine "casually". That is serious shit that will consume your life, it makes sense to ban that. Alcohol does not fit that category and frankly, neither do firearms.
Nonetheless, this does a good job at explaining why I feel a blanket ban on firearms is bad. I feel bad, to be perfectly frank, that Europeans let themselves get trod on in such a way by governments. Then again, most Europeans tend to not care about things like responsibility, which I suppose is a cultural choice.
You also purposely ignored the fact that alcohol can cause death to someone who is not the user.
The same goes for a lot of things including such basic stuff like cars. Giving up the right to do something because there is a small chance of abuse is, to put it gently, unwise.
Is there any country on earth where it is your right to drive a vehicle? Because I'm under the impression that it's not the case. it is a privilage, one that can be revoked at any moment, specifically because entrusting anybody with a 2000 pound slab of steel that can propel itself at speeds exceeding 100km/h is absolutely absurd.
You are subject to exams, regulations and restrictions before you can even legally drive on the road.
I dont think it should be banned, but regulated heavily? Absolutely. Just like guns.
On August 31 2014 04:28 Incognoto wrote: Why on earth would you ban alcohol? Genuine question, which imo has something to do with the topic at hand, because your answer is very likely to apply to firearms as well.
It has no practical use outside of getting drunk and causes a lot of deaths. Firearms cause many deaths and they do not defend a house as well as a good alarm system or a dog. I guess you cannot use the alarm system as a toy though.
That is some absolutely atrocious logic and I don't think I'm even going to waste time arguing against that.
Still, I'll bite. Why on earth would you ban something on the grounds that it isn't "practical"? Do you have a picture of Stalin above your bed?
The fact remains that alcohol is something that a lot of people enjoy and drink responsibly. They'll drink with good food, they'll drink with friends, they'll get a bit tipsy but who the hell cares since being tipsy is fun. As long as you don't drink excessively, you are fine. As long as you don't drink and drive, others are also fine. So who the hell are you to say others shouldn't drink? Because stupid people won't be fine? Is that really good enough to ban something? That's some really crazy talk right there, you should be careful.
^ This exact reasoning is pretty much applicable to firearms as well.
Banning something on the grounds that stupid people might cause problems is NEVER a good thing to do.
E: Also disregarding the usage of guns for hunting, sport shooting, protection and pest control is incredibly arrogant. You don't care about hunting or sport shooting, so you should prevent others from having those interests. Screw you, that's terribly arrogant. You also live in a safe, European urban area, so screw the need to shoot at dangerous animals, right? Or intruders for that matter. People are using their own, limited, views as a reason to ban firearms. It's incredible how narrow-minded some people can be.
Good. Now explain me why you define stalinist every single country who bans drugs. Also if alcohol caused problems only to those who used them your reasoning would be correct but we both know it is not the case. What if i am just walking around and a drunk guy drives over me? I do drink but i would be willing to sacrify this freedom of mine so that stupid people who abuse alcohol will not be able to hurt anyone (it is kinda impossible to prevent people from drinking as i said in a previous post. I am merely stating he reasons you should ban alcohol).
On a side note tone down a bit the hatred. Don't compare me to criminals and immature edgy stuff like that.
But that is edgy. People who harbor such views give me goosebumps and it's these kinds of ideas that make me lose faith in humanity. I do not want to be micromanaged by a government telling me what's good and what's not. I think that I'm smart enough to figure that out by myself. I know that abusing alcohol is dangerous to both me and others. So I'm not going to abuse it. Telling me not to drink for those reasons is basically telling me that I'm an idiot with no sense of responsibility. That, to me, would be disgusting. I would rather die than live a life where I am not responsible for my actions. Luckily, most governments do not harbor such dangerous views.
Drugs is a different matter in that they're much more addictive. Yes, so is alcohol, yet much less so. You can drink responsibly without problem. You can't do cocaine or heroine "casually". That is serious shit that will consume your life, it makes sense to ban that. Alcohol does not fit that category and frankly, neither do firearms.
Nonetheless, this does a good job at explaining why I feel a blanket ban on firearms is bad. I feel bad, to be perfectly frank, that Europeans let themselves get trod on in such a way by governments. Then again, most Europeans tend to not care about things like responsibility, which I suppose is a cultural choice.
You also purposely ignored the fact that alcohol can cause death to someone who is not the user.
The same goes for a lot of things including such basic stuff like cars. Giving up the right to do something because there is a small chance of abuse is, to put it gently, unwise.
Is there any country on earth where it is your right to drive a vehicle? Because I'm under the impression that it's not the case. it is a privilage, one that can be revoked at any moment, specifically because entrusting anybody with a 2000 pound slab of steel that can propel itself at speeds exceeding 100km/h is absolutely absurd.
You are subject to exams, regulations and restrictions before you can even legally drive on the road.
I dont think it should be banned, but regulated heavily? Absolutely. Just like guns.
Should be cars be regulated more heavily than firearms, seeing how it makes a ****load more victims. Replace that shit with bikes and buses where possible, like the cities. Make a shitload of buses and public transportation and bike lanes and sidewalks. That'd be productive.
On August 31 2014 04:28 Incognoto wrote: Why on earth would you ban alcohol? Genuine question, which imo has something to do with the topic at hand, because your answer is very likely to apply to firearms as well.
It has no practical use outside of getting drunk and causes a lot of deaths. Firearms cause many deaths and they do not defend a house as well as a good alarm system or a dog. I guess you cannot use the alarm system as a toy though.
That is some absolutely atrocious logic and I don't think I'm even going to waste time arguing against that.
Still, I'll bite. Why on earth would you ban something on the grounds that it isn't "practical"? Do you have a picture of Stalin above your bed?
The fact remains that alcohol is something that a lot of people enjoy and drink responsibly. They'll drink with good food, they'll drink with friends, they'll get a bit tipsy but who the hell cares since being tipsy is fun. As long as you don't drink excessively, you are fine. As long as you don't drink and drive, others are also fine. So who the hell are you to say others shouldn't drink? Because stupid people won't be fine? Is that really good enough to ban something? That's some really crazy talk right there, you should be careful.
^ This exact reasoning is pretty much applicable to firearms as well.
Banning something on the grounds that stupid people might cause problems is NEVER a good thing to do.
E: Also disregarding the usage of guns for hunting, sport shooting, protection and pest control is incredibly arrogant. You don't care about hunting or sport shooting, so you should prevent others from having those interests. Screw you, that's terribly arrogant. You also live in a safe, European urban area, so screw the need to shoot at dangerous animals, right? Or intruders for that matter. People are using their own, limited, views as a reason to ban firearms. It's incredible how narrow-minded some people can be.
Good. Now explain me why you define stalinist every single country who bans drugs. Also if alcohol caused problems only to those who used them your reasoning would be correct but we both know it is not the case. What if i am just walking around and a drunk guy drives over me? I do drink but i would be willing to sacrify this freedom of mine so that stupid people who abuse alcohol will not be able to hurt anyone (it is kinda impossible to prevent people from drinking as i said in a previous post. I am merely stating he reasons you should ban alcohol).
On a side note tone down a bit the hatred. Don't compare me to criminals and immature edgy stuff like that.
But that is edgy. People who harbor such views give me goosebumps and it's these kinds of ideas that make me lose faith in humanity. I do not want to be micromanaged by a government telling me what's good and what's not. I think that I'm smart enough to figure that out by myself. I know that abusing alcohol is dangerous to both me and others. So I'm not going to abuse it. Telling me not to drink for those reasons is basically telling me that I'm an idiot with no sense of responsibility. That, to me, would be disgusting. I would rather die than live a life where I am not responsible for my actions. Luckily, most governments do not harbor such dangerous views.
Drugs is a different matter in that they're much more addictive. Yes, so is alcohol, yet much less so. You can drink responsibly without problem. You can't do cocaine or heroine "casually". That is serious shit that will consume your life, it makes sense to ban that. Alcohol does not fit that category and frankly, neither do firearms.
Nonetheless, this does a good job at explaining why I feel a blanket ban on firearms is bad. I feel bad, to be perfectly frank, that Europeans let themselves get trod on in such a way by governments. Then again, most Europeans tend to not care about things like responsibility, which I suppose is a cultural choice.
You also purposely ignored the fact that alcohol can cause death to someone who is not the user.
The same goes for a lot of things including such basic stuff like cars. Giving up the right to do something because there is a small chance of abuse is, to put it gently, unwise.
Is there any country on earth where it is your right to drive a vehicle? Because I'm under the impression that it's not the case. it is a privilage, one that can be revoked at any moment, specifically because entrusting anybody with a 2000 pound slab of steel that can propel itself at speeds exceeding 100km/h is absolutely absurd.
You are subject to exams, regulations and restrictions before you can even legally drive on the road.
I dont think it should be banned, but regulated heavily? Absolutely. Just like guns.
Yeah, I think pretty much everywhere anyone has the right to drive a vehicle - on private property. Licensing privileges only come with driving on public roads. But it's not unheard of to see young teens involved in motorsports all around the world.
On August 31 2014 04:28 Incognoto wrote: Why on earth would you ban alcohol? Genuine question, which imo has something to do with the topic at hand, because your answer is very likely to apply to firearms as well.
It has no practical use outside of getting drunk and causes a lot of deaths. Firearms cause many deaths and they do not defend a house as well as a good alarm system or a dog. I guess you cannot use the alarm system as a toy though.
That is some absolutely atrocious logic and I don't think I'm even going to waste time arguing against that.
Still, I'll bite. Why on earth would you ban something on the grounds that it isn't "practical"? Do you have a picture of Stalin above your bed?
The fact remains that alcohol is something that a lot of people enjoy and drink responsibly. They'll drink with good food, they'll drink with friends, they'll get a bit tipsy but who the hell cares since being tipsy is fun. As long as you don't drink excessively, you are fine. As long as you don't drink and drive, others are also fine. So who the hell are you to say others shouldn't drink? Because stupid people won't be fine? Is that really good enough to ban something? That's some really crazy talk right there, you should be careful.
^ This exact reasoning is pretty much applicable to firearms as well.
Banning something on the grounds that stupid people might cause problems is NEVER a good thing to do.
E: Also disregarding the usage of guns for hunting, sport shooting, protection and pest control is incredibly arrogant. You don't care about hunting or sport shooting, so you should prevent others from having those interests. Screw you, that's terribly arrogant. You also live in a safe, European urban area, so screw the need to shoot at dangerous animals, right? Or intruders for that matter. People are using their own, limited, views as a reason to ban firearms. It's incredible how narrow-minded some people can be.
Good. Now explain me why you define stalinist every single country who bans drugs. Also if alcohol caused problems only to those who used them your reasoning would be correct but we both know it is not the case. What if i am just walking around and a drunk guy drives over me? I do drink but i would be willing to sacrify this freedom of mine so that stupid people who abuse alcohol will not be able to hurt anyone (it is kinda impossible to prevent people from drinking as i said in a previous post. I am merely stating he reasons you should ban alcohol).
On a side note tone down a bit the hatred. Don't compare me to criminals and immature edgy stuff like that.
But that is edgy. People who harbor such views give me goosebumps and it's these kinds of ideas that make me lose faith in humanity. I do not want to be micromanaged by a government telling me what's good and what's not. I think that I'm smart enough to figure that out by myself. I know that abusing alcohol is dangerous to both me and others. So I'm not going to abuse it. Telling me not to drink for those reasons is basically telling me that I'm an idiot with no sense of responsibility. That, to me, would be disgusting. I would rather die than live a life where I am not responsible for my actions. Luckily, most governments do not harbor such dangerous views.
Drugs is a different matter in that they're much more addictive. Yes, so is alcohol, yet much less so. You can drink responsibly without problem. You can't do cocaine or heroine "casually". That is serious shit that will consume your life, it makes sense to ban that. Alcohol does not fit that category and frankly, neither do firearms.
Nonetheless, this does a good job at explaining why I feel a blanket ban on firearms is bad. I feel bad, to be perfectly frank, that Europeans let themselves get trod on in such a way by governments. Then again, most Europeans tend to not care about things like responsibility, which I suppose is a cultural choice.
You also purposely ignored the fact that alcohol can cause death to someone who is not the user.
The same goes for a lot of things including such basic stuff like cars. Giving up the right to do something because there is a small chance of abuse is, to put it gently, unwise.
Is there any country on earth where it is your right to drive a vehicle? Because I'm under the impression that it's not the case. it is a privilage, one that can be revoked at any moment, specifically because entrusting anybody with a 2000 pound slab of steel that can propel itself at speeds exceeding 100km/h is absolutely absurd.
It is both. I have the right to drive a car when I pass the exam and it can only be revoked when I do some serious stuff. Of course there should be regulations for potentially dangerous things like cars, alocohol or guns.
On August 31 2014 04:28 Incognoto wrote: Why on earth would you ban alcohol? Genuine question, which imo has something to do with the topic at hand, because your answer is very likely to apply to firearms as well.
It has no practical use outside of getting drunk and causes a lot of deaths. Firearms cause many deaths and they do not defend a house as well as a good alarm system or a dog. I guess you cannot use the alarm system as a toy though.
That is some absolutely atrocious logic and I don't think I'm even going to waste time arguing against that.
Still, I'll bite. Why on earth would you ban something on the grounds that it isn't "practical"? Do you have a picture of Stalin above your bed?
The fact remains that alcohol is something that a lot of people enjoy and drink responsibly. They'll drink with good food, they'll drink with friends, they'll get a bit tipsy but who the hell cares since being tipsy is fun. As long as you don't drink excessively, you are fine. As long as you don't drink and drive, others are also fine. So who the hell are you to say others shouldn't drink? Because stupid people won't be fine? Is that really good enough to ban something? That's some really crazy talk right there, you should be careful.
^ This exact reasoning is pretty much applicable to firearms as well.
Banning something on the grounds that stupid people might cause problems is NEVER a good thing to do.
E: Also disregarding the usage of guns for hunting, sport shooting, protection and pest control is incredibly arrogant. You don't care about hunting or sport shooting, so you should prevent others from having those interests. Screw you, that's terribly arrogant. You also live in a safe, European urban area, so screw the need to shoot at dangerous animals, right? Or intruders for that matter. People are using their own, limited, views as a reason to ban firearms. It's incredible how narrow-minded some people can be.
Good. Now explain me why you define stalinist every single country who bans drugs. Also if alcohol caused problems only to those who used them your reasoning would be correct but we both know it is not the case. What if i am just walking around and a drunk guy drives over me? I do drink but i would be willing to sacrify this freedom of mine so that stupid people who abuse alcohol will not be able to hurt anyone (it is kinda impossible to prevent people from drinking as i said in a previous post. I am merely stating he reasons you should ban alcohol).
On a side note tone down a bit the hatred. Don't compare me to criminals and immature edgy stuff like that.
But that is edgy. People who harbor such views give me goosebumps and it's these kinds of ideas that make me lose faith in humanity. I do not want to be micromanaged by a government telling me what's good and what's not. I think that I'm smart enough to figure that out by myself. I know that abusing alcohol is dangerous to both me and others. So I'm not going to abuse it. Telling me not to drink for those reasons is basically telling me that I'm an idiot with no sense of responsibility. That, to me, would be disgusting. I would rather die than live a life where I am not responsible for my actions. Luckily, most governments do not harbor such dangerous views.
Drugs is a different matter in that they're much more addictive. Yes, so is alcohol, yet much less so. You can drink responsibly without problem. You can't do cocaine or heroine "casually". That is serious shit that will consume your life, it makes sense to ban that. Alcohol does not fit that category and frankly, neither do firearms.
Nonetheless, this does a good job at explaining why I feel a blanket ban on firearms is bad. I feel bad, to be perfectly frank, that Europeans let themselves get trod on in such a way by governments. Then again, most Europeans tend to not care about things like responsibility, which I suppose is a cultural choice.
You also purposely ignored the fact that alcohol can cause death to someone who is not the user.
The same goes for a lot of things including such basic stuff like cars. Giving up the right to do something because there is a small chance of abuse is, to put it gently, unwise.
Is there any country on earth where it is your right to drive a vehicle? Because I'm under the impression that it's not the case. it is a privilage, one that can be revoked at any moment, specifically because entrusting anybody with a 2000 pound slab of steel that can propel itself at speeds exceeding 100km/h is absolutely absurd.
It is both. I have the right to drive a car when I pass the exam and it can only be revoked when I do some serious stuff. Of course there should be regulations for potentially dangerous things like cars, alocohol or guns.
I know in Washington state they pull your license as soon as an officer writes (and submits) a DUI ticket. Even if it is found later that he was 100% wrong and you hadn't had a drop to drink you still lose your license. They don't have to prove you did it at all, just accuse you of it.
If someone wants to take things from me based on my actions I'd at least expect them to have to prove it to some degree.
On August 31 2014 04:28 Incognoto wrote: Why on earth would you ban alcohol? Genuine question, which imo has something to do with the topic at hand, because your answer is very likely to apply to firearms as well.
It has no practical use outside of getting drunk and causes a lot of deaths. Firearms cause many deaths and they do not defend a house as well as a good alarm system or a dog. I guess you cannot use the alarm system as a toy though.
That is some absolutely atrocious logic and I don't think I'm even going to waste time arguing against that.
Still, I'll bite. Why on earth would you ban something on the grounds that it isn't "practical"? Do you have a picture of Stalin above your bed?
The fact remains that alcohol is something that a lot of people enjoy and drink responsibly. They'll drink with good food, they'll drink with friends, they'll get a bit tipsy but who the hell cares since being tipsy is fun. As long as you don't drink excessively, you are fine. As long as you don't drink and drive, others are also fine. So who the hell are you to say others shouldn't drink? Because stupid people won't be fine? Is that really good enough to ban something? That's some really crazy talk right there, you should be careful.
^ This exact reasoning is pretty much applicable to firearms as well.
Banning something on the grounds that stupid people might cause problems is NEVER a good thing to do.
E: Also disregarding the usage of guns for hunting, sport shooting, protection and pest control is incredibly arrogant. You don't care about hunting or sport shooting, so you should prevent others from having those interests. Screw you, that's terribly arrogant. You also live in a safe, European urban area, so screw the need to shoot at dangerous animals, right? Or intruders for that matter. People are using their own, limited, views as a reason to ban firearms. It's incredible how narrow-minded some people can be.
Good. Now explain me why you define stalinist every single country who bans drugs. Also if alcohol caused problems only to those who used them your reasoning would be correct but we both know it is not the case. What if i am just walking around and a drunk guy drives over me? I do drink but i would be willing to sacrify this freedom of mine so that stupid people who abuse alcohol will not be able to hurt anyone (it is kinda impossible to prevent people from drinking as i said in a previous post. I am merely stating he reasons you should ban alcohol).
On a side note tone down a bit the hatred. Don't compare me to criminals and immature edgy stuff like that.
But that is edgy. People who harbor such views give me goosebumps and it's these kinds of ideas that make me lose faith in humanity. I do not want to be micromanaged by a government telling me what's good and what's not. I think that I'm smart enough to figure that out by myself. I know that abusing alcohol is dangerous to both me and others. So I'm not going to abuse it. Telling me not to drink for those reasons is basically telling me that I'm an idiot with no sense of responsibility. That, to me, would be disgusting. I would rather die than live a life where I am not responsible for my actions. Luckily, most governments do not harbor such dangerous views.
Drugs is a different matter in that they're much more addictive. Yes, so is alcohol, yet much less so. You can drink responsibly without problem. You can't do cocaine or heroine "casually". That is serious shit that will consume your life, it makes sense to ban that. Alcohol does not fit that category and frankly, neither do firearms.
Nonetheless, this does a good job at explaining why I feel a blanket ban on firearms is bad. I feel bad, to be perfectly frank, that Europeans let themselves get trod on in such a way by governments. Then again, most Europeans tend to not care about things like responsibility, which I suppose is a cultural choice.
You also purposely ignored the fact that alcohol can cause death to someone who is not the user.
The same goes for a lot of things including such basic stuff like cars. Giving up the right to do something because there is a small chance of abuse is, to put it gently, unwise.
Cars are highly regulated.
Not only do you have to be on a registry, get regular id checks, be at the discretion of officers as to how you use the car, where you keep the car, and who you have in the car, you also must get regular evaluations, insurance, and have hundreds of safety laws pressed upon you at every turn.
If car laws were being projected into gun laws 2nd amendment nuts would go ape shit.
No, they wouldn't. There are no laws on what kind of car you can own on your own property, or how fast you can drive on your own property. Really the only places cars have any regulations are public property. So you could have the fastest, least-safe car on Earth on your own property and drive at 200mph without a license, but I can't put a suppressor on my gun so I don't need ear protection every time I want to shoot tin cans on my own land.
I'm ok with public carry regulations. I'd prefer if they were lax, but I can't see a reason the state shouldn't be allowed to make that call. But I should be allowed to have a 20mm autocannon on my own land, assuming I own enough land or have a good enough backstop to use it without risking a shot leaving my property.
On August 31 2014 04:28 Incognoto wrote: Why on earth would you ban alcohol? Genuine question, which imo has something to do with the topic at hand, because your answer is very likely to apply to firearms as well.
It has no practical use outside of getting drunk and causes a lot of deaths. Firearms cause many deaths and they do not defend a house as well as a good alarm system or a dog. I guess you cannot use the alarm system as a toy though.
That is some absolutely atrocious logic and I don't think I'm even going to waste time arguing against that.
Still, I'll bite. Why on earth would you ban something on the grounds that it isn't "practical"? Do you have a picture of Stalin above your bed?
The fact remains that alcohol is something that a lot of people enjoy and drink responsibly. They'll drink with good food, they'll drink with friends, they'll get a bit tipsy but who the hell cares since being tipsy is fun. As long as you don't drink excessively, you are fine. As long as you don't drink and drive, others are also fine. So who the hell are you to say others shouldn't drink? Because stupid people won't be fine? Is that really good enough to ban something? That's some really crazy talk right there, you should be careful.
^ This exact reasoning is pretty much applicable to firearms as well.
Banning something on the grounds that stupid people might cause problems is NEVER a good thing to do.
E: Also disregarding the usage of guns for hunting, sport shooting, protection and pest control is incredibly arrogant. You don't care about hunting or sport shooting, so you should prevent others from having those interests. Screw you, that's terribly arrogant. You also live in a safe, European urban area, so screw the need to shoot at dangerous animals, right? Or intruders for that matter. People are using their own, limited, views as a reason to ban firearms. It's incredible how narrow-minded some people can be.
Good. Now explain me why you define stalinist every single country who bans drugs. Also if alcohol caused problems only to those who used them your reasoning would be correct but we both know it is not the case. What if i am just walking around and a drunk guy drives over me? I do drink but i would be willing to sacrify this freedom of mine so that stupid people who abuse alcohol will not be able to hurt anyone (it is kinda impossible to prevent people from drinking as i said in a previous post. I am merely stating he reasons you should ban alcohol).
On a side note tone down a bit the hatred. Don't compare me to criminals and immature edgy stuff like that.
But that is edgy. People who harbor such views give me goosebumps and it's these kinds of ideas that make me lose faith in humanity. I do not want to be micromanaged by a government telling me what's good and what's not. I think that I'm smart enough to figure that out by myself. I know that abusing alcohol is dangerous to both me and others. So I'm not going to abuse it. Telling me not to drink for those reasons is basically telling me that I'm an idiot with no sense of responsibility. That, to me, would be disgusting. I would rather die than live a life where I am not responsible for my actions. Luckily, most governments do not harbor such dangerous views.
Drugs is a different matter in that they're much more addictive. Yes, so is alcohol, yet much less so. You can drink responsibly without problem. You can't do cocaine or heroine "casually". That is serious shit that will consume your life, it makes sense to ban that. Alcohol does not fit that category and frankly, neither do firearms.
Nonetheless, this does a good job at explaining why I feel a blanket ban on firearms is bad. I feel bad, to be perfectly frank, that Europeans let themselves get trod on in such a way by governments. Then again, most Europeans tend to not care about things like responsibility, which I suppose is a cultural choice.
You also purposely ignored the fact that alcohol can cause death to someone who is not the user.
The same goes for a lot of things including such basic stuff like cars. Giving up the right to do something because there is a small chance of abuse is, to put it gently, unwise.
Cars are highly regulated.
Not only do you have to be on a registry, get regular id checks, be at the discretion of officers as to how you use the car, where you keep the car, and who you have in the car, you also must get regular evaluations, insurance, and have hundreds of safety laws pressed upon you at every turn.
If car laws were being projected into gun laws 2nd amendment nuts would go ape shit.
No, they wouldn't. There are no laws on what kind of car you can own on your own property, or how fast you can drive on your own property. Really the only places cars have any regulations are public property. So you could have the fastest, least-safe car on Earth on your own property and drive at 200mph without a license, but I can't put a suppressor on my gun so I don't need ear protection every time I want to shoot tin cans on my own land.
I'm ok with public carry regulations. I'd prefer if they were lax, but I can't see a reason the state shouldn't be allowed to make that call.
On August 31 2014 04:28 Incognoto wrote: Why on earth would you ban alcohol? Genuine question, which imo has something to do with the topic at hand, because your answer is very likely to apply to firearms as well.
It has no practical use outside of getting drunk and causes a lot of deaths. Firearms cause many deaths and they do not defend a house as well as a good alarm system or a dog. I guess you cannot use the alarm system as a toy though.
That is some absolutely atrocious logic and I don't think I'm even going to waste time arguing against that.
Still, I'll bite. Why on earth would you ban something on the grounds that it isn't "practical"? Do you have a picture of Stalin above your bed?
The fact remains that alcohol is something that a lot of people enjoy and drink responsibly. They'll drink with good food, they'll drink with friends, they'll get a bit tipsy but who the hell cares since being tipsy is fun. As long as you don't drink excessively, you are fine. As long as you don't drink and drive, others are also fine. So who the hell are you to say others shouldn't drink? Because stupid people won't be fine? Is that really good enough to ban something? That's some really crazy talk right there, you should be careful.
^ This exact reasoning is pretty much applicable to firearms as well.
Banning something on the grounds that stupid people might cause problems is NEVER a good thing to do.
E: Also disregarding the usage of guns for hunting, sport shooting, protection and pest control is incredibly arrogant. You don't care about hunting or sport shooting, so you should prevent others from having those interests. Screw you, that's terribly arrogant. You also live in a safe, European urban area, so screw the need to shoot at dangerous animals, right? Or intruders for that matter. People are using their own, limited, views as a reason to ban firearms. It's incredible how narrow-minded some people can be.
Good. Now explain me why you define stalinist every single country who bans drugs. Also if alcohol caused problems only to those who used them your reasoning would be correct but we both know it is not the case. What if i am just walking around and a drunk guy drives over me? I do drink but i would be willing to sacrify this freedom of mine so that stupid people who abuse alcohol will not be able to hurt anyone (it is kinda impossible to prevent people from drinking as i said in a previous post. I am merely stating he reasons you should ban alcohol).
On a side note tone down a bit the hatred. Don't compare me to criminals and immature edgy stuff like that.
But that is edgy. People who harbor such views give me goosebumps and it's these kinds of ideas that make me lose faith in humanity. I do not want to be micromanaged by a government telling me what's good and what's not. I think that I'm smart enough to figure that out by myself. I know that abusing alcohol is dangerous to both me and others. So I'm not going to abuse it. Telling me not to drink for those reasons is basically telling me that I'm an idiot with no sense of responsibility. That, to me, would be disgusting. I would rather die than live a life where I am not responsible for my actions. Luckily, most governments do not harbor such dangerous views.
Drugs is a different matter in that they're much more addictive. Yes, so is alcohol, yet much less so. You can drink responsibly without problem. You can't do cocaine or heroine "casually". That is serious shit that will consume your life, it makes sense to ban that. Alcohol does not fit that category and frankly, neither do firearms.
Nonetheless, this does a good job at explaining why I feel a blanket ban on firearms is bad. I feel bad, to be perfectly frank, that Europeans let themselves get trod on in such a way by governments. Then again, most Europeans tend to not care about things like responsibility, which I suppose is a cultural choice.
You also purposely ignored the fact that alcohol can cause death to someone who is not the user.
The same goes for a lot of things including such basic stuff like cars. Giving up the right to do something because there is a small chance of abuse is, to put it gently, unwise.
Cars are highly regulated.
Not only do you have to be on a registry, get regular id checks, be at the discretion of officers as to how you use the car, where you keep the car, and who you have in the car, you also must get regular evaluations, insurance, and have hundreds of safety laws pressed upon you at every turn.
If car laws were being projected into gun laws 2nd amendment nuts would go ape shit.
No, they wouldn't. There are no laws on what kind of car you can own on your own property, or how fast you can drive on your own property. Really the only places cars have any regulations are public property. So you could have the fastest, least-safe car on Earth on your own property and drive at 200mph without a license, but I can't put a suppressor on my gun so I don't need ear protection every time I want to shoot tin cans on my own land.
I'm ok with public carry regulations. I'd prefer if they were lax, but I can't see a reason the state shouldn't be allowed to make that call.
Why can't you own/use a suppressor?
New York's SAFE Act. Suppressors are one of the banned features. A gun with any banned features is an "assault weapon" and is illegal.
On August 31 2014 07:50 Karpfen wrote: [quote] It has no practical use outside of getting drunk and causes a lot of deaths. Firearms cause many deaths and they do not defend a house as well as a good alarm system or a dog. I guess you cannot use the alarm system as a toy though.
That is some absolutely atrocious logic and I don't think I'm even going to waste time arguing against that.
Still, I'll bite. Why on earth would you ban something on the grounds that it isn't "practical"? Do you have a picture of Stalin above your bed?
The fact remains that alcohol is something that a lot of people enjoy and drink responsibly. They'll drink with good food, they'll drink with friends, they'll get a bit tipsy but who the hell cares since being tipsy is fun. As long as you don't drink excessively, you are fine. As long as you don't drink and drive, others are also fine. So who the hell are you to say others shouldn't drink? Because stupid people won't be fine? Is that really good enough to ban something? That's some really crazy talk right there, you should be careful.
^ This exact reasoning is pretty much applicable to firearms as well.
Banning something on the grounds that stupid people might cause problems is NEVER a good thing to do.
E: Also disregarding the usage of guns for hunting, sport shooting, protection and pest control is incredibly arrogant. You don't care about hunting or sport shooting, so you should prevent others from having those interests. Screw you, that's terribly arrogant. You also live in a safe, European urban area, so screw the need to shoot at dangerous animals, right? Or intruders for that matter. People are using their own, limited, views as a reason to ban firearms. It's incredible how narrow-minded some people can be.
Good. Now explain me why you define stalinist every single country who bans drugs. Also if alcohol caused problems only to those who used them your reasoning would be correct but we both know it is not the case. What if i am just walking around and a drunk guy drives over me? I do drink but i would be willing to sacrify this freedom of mine so that stupid people who abuse alcohol will not be able to hurt anyone (it is kinda impossible to prevent people from drinking as i said in a previous post. I am merely stating he reasons you should ban alcohol).
On a side note tone down a bit the hatred. Don't compare me to criminals and immature edgy stuff like that.
But that is edgy. People who harbor such views give me goosebumps and it's these kinds of ideas that make me lose faith in humanity. I do not want to be micromanaged by a government telling me what's good and what's not. I think that I'm smart enough to figure that out by myself. I know that abusing alcohol is dangerous to both me and others. So I'm not going to abuse it. Telling me not to drink for those reasons is basically telling me that I'm an idiot with no sense of responsibility. That, to me, would be disgusting. I would rather die than live a life where I am not responsible for my actions. Luckily, most governments do not harbor such dangerous views.
Drugs is a different matter in that they're much more addictive. Yes, so is alcohol, yet much less so. You can drink responsibly without problem. You can't do cocaine or heroine "casually". That is serious shit that will consume your life, it makes sense to ban that. Alcohol does not fit that category and frankly, neither do firearms.
Nonetheless, this does a good job at explaining why I feel a blanket ban on firearms is bad. I feel bad, to be perfectly frank, that Europeans let themselves get trod on in such a way by governments. Then again, most Europeans tend to not care about things like responsibility, which I suppose is a cultural choice.
You also purposely ignored the fact that alcohol can cause death to someone who is not the user.
The same goes for a lot of things including such basic stuff like cars. Giving up the right to do something because there is a small chance of abuse is, to put it gently, unwise.
Cars are highly regulated.
Not only do you have to be on a registry, get regular id checks, be at the discretion of officers as to how you use the car, where you keep the car, and who you have in the car, you also must get regular evaluations, insurance, and have hundreds of safety laws pressed upon you at every turn.
If car laws were being projected into gun laws 2nd amendment nuts would go ape shit.
No, they wouldn't. There are no laws on what kind of car you can own on your own property, or how fast you can drive on your own property. Really the only places cars have any regulations are public property. So you could have the fastest, least-safe car on Earth on your own property and drive at 200mph without a license, but I can't put a suppressor on my gun so I don't need ear protection every time I want to shoot tin cans on my own land.
I'm ok with public carry regulations. I'd prefer if they were lax, but I can't see a reason the state shouldn't be allowed to make that call.
Why can't you own/use a suppressor?
New York's SAFE Act. Suppressors are one of the banned features. A gun with any banned features is an "assault weapon" and is illegal.
That sucks. I'd pick a different state to live.
AL, AK, AZ, AR, CO, CT, FL, GA, ID, IN, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MI, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NM, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, WA, WV, WI, and WY
All states where they are legal.
And technically you could have had a suppressor and if you did then would still be free to use it. But I agree you should have to know something about guns if you are going to write laws about them.
Making someone register a gun because they put a flash suppressor or pistol grip on their gun is just plain stupid. "Military style feature" like come the hell on...A damn flashlight could turn a standard shotgun into an 'assault weapon'
But in general I support states making these decisions for themselves, at least it's not the federal government saying you can't have it.
On August 31 2014 04:28 Incognoto wrote: Why on earth would you ban alcohol? Genuine question, which imo has something to do with the topic at hand, because your answer is very likely to apply to firearms as well.
It has no practical use outside of getting drunk and causes a lot of deaths. Firearms cause many deaths and they do not defend a house as well as a good alarm system or a dog. I guess you cannot use the alarm system as a toy though.
That is some absolutely atrocious logic and I don't think I'm even going to waste time arguing against that.
Still, I'll bite. Why on earth would you ban something on the grounds that it isn't "practical"? Do you have a picture of Stalin above your bed?
The fact remains that alcohol is something that a lot of people enjoy and drink responsibly. They'll drink with good food, they'll drink with friends, they'll get a bit tipsy but who the hell cares since being tipsy is fun. As long as you don't drink excessively, you are fine. As long as you don't drink and drive, others are also fine. So who the hell are you to say others shouldn't drink? Because stupid people won't be fine? Is that really good enough to ban something? That's some really crazy talk right there, you should be careful.
^ This exact reasoning is pretty much applicable to firearms as well.
Banning something on the grounds that stupid people might cause problems is NEVER a good thing to do.
E: Also disregarding the usage of guns for hunting, sport shooting, protection and pest control is incredibly arrogant. You don't care about hunting or sport shooting, so you should prevent others from having those interests. Screw you, that's terribly arrogant. You also live in a safe, European urban area, so screw the need to shoot at dangerous animals, right? Or intruders for that matter. People are using their own, limited, views as a reason to ban firearms. It's incredible how narrow-minded some people can be.
Good. Now explain me why you define stalinist every single country who bans drugs. Also if alcohol caused problems only to those who used them your reasoning would be correct but we both know it is not the case. What if i am just walking around and a drunk guy drives over me? I do drink but i would be willing to sacrify this freedom of mine so that stupid people who abuse alcohol will not be able to hurt anyone (it is kinda impossible to prevent people from drinking as i said in a previous post. I am merely stating he reasons you should ban alcohol).
On a side note tone down a bit the hatred. Don't compare me to criminals and immature edgy stuff like that.
But that is edgy. People who harbor such views give me goosebumps and it's these kinds of ideas that make me lose faith in humanity. I do not want to be micromanaged by a government telling me what's good and what's not. I think that I'm smart enough to figure that out by myself. I know that abusing alcohol is dangerous to both me and others. So I'm not going to abuse it. Telling me not to drink for those reasons is basically telling me that I'm an idiot with no sense of responsibility. That, to me, would be disgusting. I would rather die than live a life where I am not responsible for my actions. Luckily, most governments do not harbor such dangerous views.
Drugs is a different matter in that they're much more addictive. Yes, so is alcohol, yet much less so. You can drink responsibly without problem. You can't do cocaine or heroine "casually". That is serious shit that will consume your life, it makes sense to ban that. Alcohol does not fit that category and frankly, neither do firearms.
Nonetheless, this does a good job at explaining why I feel a blanket ban on firearms is bad. I feel bad, to be perfectly frank, that Europeans let themselves get trod on in such a way by governments. Then again, most Europeans tend to not care about things like responsibility, which I suppose is a cultural choice.
You also purposely ignored the fact that alcohol can cause death to someone who is not the user.
The same goes for a lot of things including such basic stuff like cars. Giving up the right to do something because there is a small chance of abuse is, to put it gently, unwise.
Is there any country on earth where it is your right to drive a vehicle? Because I'm under the impression that it's not the case. it is a privilage, one that can be revoked at any moment, specifically because entrusting anybody with a 2000 pound slab of steel that can propel itself at speeds exceeding 100km/h is absolutely absurd.
It is both. I have the right to drive a car when I pass the exam and it can only be revoked when I do some serious stuff. Of course there should be regulations for potentially dangerous things like cars, alocohol or guns.
I know in Washington state they pull your license as soon as an officer writes (and submits) a DUI ticket. Even if it is found later that he was 100% wrong and you hadn't had a drop to drink you still lose your license. They don't have to prove you did it at all, just accuse you of it.
If someone wants to take things from me based on my actions I'd at least expect them to have to prove it to some degree.
That sounds very undemocratic, even a proposal for such a think would cause a revolution in Germany. Cars here are like guns in the US.
On September 09 2014 02:14 psheldr wrote: I dunno if that has been asked already but is there anyone here who thinks if you have the buck you should be able to buy surface to air missiles?
Sure. They're not as big of a safety concern as you might think. The ones small enough to be operated by one person are only good at hitting relatively low flying targets at close range. Airliners are totally safe. The ones big enough to nail an airliner at cruising altitude are basically tanks, and if you wanted to do something malicious with them, you'll leave so much evidence of your plan along the way you'll get busted.
On September 09 2014 02:14 psheldr wrote: I dunno if that has been asked already but is there anyone here who thinks if you have the buck you should be able to buy surface to air missiles?
Yes... I would build them all around my property and shoot down anyone invading my air space.
That is some absolutely atrocious logic and I don't think I'm even going to waste time arguing against that.
Still, I'll bite. Why on earth would you ban something on the grounds that it isn't "practical"? Do you have a picture of Stalin above your bed?
The fact remains that alcohol is something that a lot of people enjoy and drink responsibly. They'll drink with good food, they'll drink with friends, they'll get a bit tipsy but who the hell cares since being tipsy is fun. As long as you don't drink excessively, you are fine. As long as you don't drink and drive, others are also fine. So who the hell are you to say others shouldn't drink? Because stupid people won't be fine? Is that really good enough to ban something? That's some really crazy talk right there, you should be careful.
^ This exact reasoning is pretty much applicable to firearms as well.
Banning something on the grounds that stupid people might cause problems is NEVER a good thing to do.
E: Also disregarding the usage of guns for hunting, sport shooting, protection and pest control is incredibly arrogant. You don't care about hunting or sport shooting, so you should prevent others from having those interests. Screw you, that's terribly arrogant. You also live in a safe, European urban area, so screw the need to shoot at dangerous animals, right? Or intruders for that matter. People are using their own, limited, views as a reason to ban firearms. It's incredible how narrow-minded some people can be.
Good. Now explain me why you define stalinist every single country who bans drugs. Also if alcohol caused problems only to those who used them your reasoning would be correct but we both know it is not the case. What if i am just walking around and a drunk guy drives over me? I do drink but i would be willing to sacrify this freedom of mine so that stupid people who abuse alcohol will not be able to hurt anyone (it is kinda impossible to prevent people from drinking as i said in a previous post. I am merely stating he reasons you should ban alcohol).
On a side note tone down a bit the hatred. Don't compare me to criminals and immature edgy stuff like that.
But that is edgy. People who harbor such views give me goosebumps and it's these kinds of ideas that make me lose faith in humanity. I do not want to be micromanaged by a government telling me what's good and what's not. I think that I'm smart enough to figure that out by myself. I know that abusing alcohol is dangerous to both me and others. So I'm not going to abuse it. Telling me not to drink for those reasons is basically telling me that I'm an idiot with no sense of responsibility. That, to me, would be disgusting. I would rather die than live a life where I am not responsible for my actions. Luckily, most governments do not harbor such dangerous views.
Drugs is a different matter in that they're much more addictive. Yes, so is alcohol, yet much less so. You can drink responsibly without problem. You can't do cocaine or heroine "casually". That is serious shit that will consume your life, it makes sense to ban that. Alcohol does not fit that category and frankly, neither do firearms.
Nonetheless, this does a good job at explaining why I feel a blanket ban on firearms is bad. I feel bad, to be perfectly frank, that Europeans let themselves get trod on in such a way by governments. Then again, most Europeans tend to not care about things like responsibility, which I suppose is a cultural choice.
You also purposely ignored the fact that alcohol can cause death to someone who is not the user.
The same goes for a lot of things including such basic stuff like cars. Giving up the right to do something because there is a small chance of abuse is, to put it gently, unwise.
Cars are highly regulated.
Not only do you have to be on a registry, get regular id checks, be at the discretion of officers as to how you use the car, where you keep the car, and who you have in the car, you also must get regular evaluations, insurance, and have hundreds of safety laws pressed upon you at every turn.
If car laws were being projected into gun laws 2nd amendment nuts would go ape shit.
No, they wouldn't. There are no laws on what kind of car you can own on your own property, or how fast you can drive on your own property. Really the only places cars have any regulations are public property. So you could have the fastest, least-safe car on Earth on your own property and drive at 200mph without a license, but I can't put a suppressor on my gun so I don't need ear protection every time I want to shoot tin cans on my own land.
I'm ok with public carry regulations. I'd prefer if they were lax, but I can't see a reason the state shouldn't be allowed to make that call.
Why can't you own/use a suppressor?
New York's SAFE Act. Suppressors are one of the banned features. A gun with any banned features is an "assault weapon" and is illegal.
AL, AK, AZ, AR, CO, CT, FL, GA, ID, IN, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MI, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NM, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, WA, WV, WI, and WY
All states where they are legal.
And technically you could have had a suppressor and if you did then would still be free to use it. But I agree you should have to know something about guns if you are going to write laws about them.
Making someone register a gun because they put a flash suppressor or pistol grip on their gun is just plain stupid. "Military style feature" like come the hell on...A damn flashlight could turn a standard shotgun into an 'assault weapon'
But in general I support states making these decisions for themselves, at least it's not the federal government saying you can't have it.
Suppressors in reality are used to prevent hearing damage the majority of the time. Suppressors do not behave like Hollywood would have you believe. It takes a combination of having a high quality suppressor as well as subsonic ammunition to come anywhere near that effect. Suppressors are very legitimate for use in home defence, because it reduces muzzle flash (useful at night) and it also means you don't blow your eardrums out. Sure you can keep a pair of ear defenders nearby, but that also reduces your awareness of your surroundings.
Suppressors have really suffered from their portrayal in Hollywood as being the tools of assassins and spies.
On August 31 2014 04:28 Incognoto wrote: Why on earth would you ban alcohol? Genuine question, which imo has something to do with the topic at hand, because your answer is very likely to apply to firearms as well.
It has no practical use outside of getting drunk and causes a lot of deaths. Firearms cause many deaths and they do not defend a house as well as a good alarm system or a dog. I guess you cannot use the alarm system as a toy though.
That is some absolutely atrocious logic and I don't think I'm even going to waste time arguing against that.
Still, I'll bite. Why on earth would you ban something on the grounds that it isn't "practical"? Do you have a picture of Stalin above your bed?
The fact remains that alcohol is something that a lot of people enjoy and drink responsibly. They'll drink with good food, they'll drink with friends, they'll get a bit tipsy but who the hell cares since being tipsy is fun. As long as you don't drink excessively, you are fine. As long as you don't drink and drive, others are also fine. So who the hell are you to say others shouldn't drink? Because stupid people won't be fine? Is that really good enough to ban something? That's some really crazy talk right there, you should be careful.
^ This exact reasoning is pretty much applicable to firearms as well.
Banning something on the grounds that stupid people might cause problems is NEVER a good thing to do.
E: Also disregarding the usage of guns for hunting, sport shooting, protection and pest control is incredibly arrogant. You don't care about hunting or sport shooting, so you should prevent others from having those interests. Screw you, that's terribly arrogant. You also live in a safe, European urban area, so screw the need to shoot at dangerous animals, right? Or intruders for that matter. People are using their own, limited, views as a reason to ban firearms. It's incredible how narrow-minded some people can be.
Good. Now explain me why you define stalinist every single country who bans drugs. Also if alcohol caused problems only to those who used them your reasoning would be correct but we both know it is not the case. What if i am just walking around and a drunk guy drives over me? I do drink but i would be willing to sacrify this freedom of mine so that stupid people who abuse alcohol will not be able to hurt anyone (it is kinda impossible to prevent people from drinking as i said in a previous post. I am merely stating he reasons you should ban alcohol).
On a side note tone down a bit the hatred. Don't compare me to criminals and immature edgy stuff like that.
But that is edgy. People who harbor such views give me goosebumps and it's these kinds of ideas that make me lose faith in humanity. I do not want to be micromanaged by a government telling me what's good and what's not. I think that I'm smart enough to figure that out by myself. I know that abusing alcohol is dangerous to both me and others. So I'm not going to abuse it. Telling me not to drink for those reasons is basically telling me that I'm an idiot with no sense of responsibility. That, to me, would be disgusting. I would rather die than live a life where I am not responsible for my actions. Luckily, most governments do not harbor such dangerous views.
Drugs is a different matter in that they're much more addictive. Yes, so is alcohol, yet much less so. You can drink responsibly without problem. You can't do cocaine or heroine "casually". That is serious shit that will consume your life, it makes sense to ban that. Alcohol does not fit that category and frankly, neither do firearms.
Nonetheless, this does a good job at explaining why I feel a blanket ban on firearms is bad. I feel bad, to be perfectly frank, that Europeans let themselves get trod on in such a way by governments. Then again, most Europeans tend to not care about things like responsibility, which I suppose is a cultural choice.
You also purposely ignored the fact that alcohol can cause death to someone who is not the user.
The same goes for a lot of things including such basic stuff like cars. Giving up the right to do something because there is a small chance of abuse is, to put it gently, unwise.
EPT
