|
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 June 13 2016 10:15 thePunGun wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2016 09:54 Sermokala wrote:On June 13 2016 09:47 thePunGun wrote:bureaucrats in Washington DC would be able to strip citizens of their constitutional rights without trial or even a judges look at it How? Quite frankly that's an assumption disguised as an argument to win over gun owners, who fear for their legal right to own one. As long as your not on a potential terrorist list, you can keep your guns and potential terrorists won't! You won't get on that list just for laughs and giggles, they need proper evidence for that (like a summer vacation to Syria/Iraq or Afghanistan). I don't see how anyone in their right mind can be against that! But who decides whos a potential terrorist now and whos not? Or is it the restriction of being able to purchase a weapon being your second amendment rights being taken away that you are arguing about? It doesn't matter how much evidence you or I think may be enough its up to a judge to decide if its enough to take away your rights. Thats why people with felons or other crimes can take away your second amendment rights without a problem. The Orlando shooter wasn't even on that list, because the FBI didn't have enough evidence. Even though they interviewed him in 2! terror-related cases...What about other cases in Heston ,Kansas for example a felon illegaly bought a gun at a gunshow goes on a shootingspree, kills 3 people and wounds 15 others, this February. You think that's okay? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the second amendment, as long as you're a law-abiding citizen.... But there are some sick bastards out there, who just don't deserve the right to protect themselves with a gun as long as they endanger others!
I'm entirely for closeing the gun show loophole and I've belived that they've always been fairly shady places. The point is that a comprehensive background check system is incredibly hard to imagine without loseing common concencious about it. Ie how the checks are recorded, where the checks go to be checked against, what databases's are used to decide who doesn't pass it.
|
Maybe allowing millions of immigrants from nations where homosexuality is illegal and in many punishable by death is not a good idea? Both his parents were from Afghanistan and many at his mosque were from the middle east and likely carried those customs and beliefs with them.
Time to wake up.
|
Heh what's new. The solution is there, it's simple, but nope "constitutional rights" and "freedom"!
The reality is that we'll probably see each other in this thread in a few months time again.
RIP.
|
On June 13 2016 10:30 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2016 10:15 thePunGun wrote:On June 13 2016 09:54 Sermokala wrote:On June 13 2016 09:47 thePunGun wrote:bureaucrats in Washington DC would be able to strip citizens of their constitutional rights without trial or even a judges look at it How? Quite frankly that's an assumption disguised as an argument to win over gun owners, who fear for their legal right to own one. As long as your not on a potential terrorist list, you can keep your guns and potential terrorists won't! You won't get on that list just for laughs and giggles, they need proper evidence for that (like a summer vacation to Syria/Iraq or Afghanistan). I don't see how anyone in their right mind can be against that! But who decides whos a potential terrorist now and whos not? Or is it the restriction of being able to purchase a weapon being your second amendment rights being taken away that you are arguing about? It doesn't matter how much evidence you or I think may be enough its up to a judge to decide if its enough to take away your rights. Thats why people with felons or other crimes can take away your second amendment rights without a problem. The Orlando shooter wasn't even on that list, because the FBI didn't have enough evidence. Even though they interviewed him in 2! terror-related cases...What about other cases in Heston ,Kansas for example a felon illegaly bought a gun at a gunshow goes on a shootingspree, kills 3 people and wounds 15 others, this February. You think that's okay? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the second amendment, as long as you're a law-abiding citizen.... But there are some sick bastards out there, who just don't deserve the right to protect themselves with a gun as long as they endanger others! I'm entirely for closeing the gun show loophole and I've belived that they've always been fairly shady places. The point is that a comprehensive background check system is incredibly hard to imagine without loseing common concencious about it. Ie how the checks are recorded, where the checks go to be checked against, what databases's are used to decide who doesn't pass it.
A bare minimum improvement would just be requiring the same check you get if you go to Cabela's or wherever for every sale outside of family. Could even create some jobs with third parties offering to provide easy access to BG checks for people who are doing person to person transactions outside of family (gun shows for example). If you lose a gun, and don't report it, you're liable for whatever happens with it later.
They just need to be simple pass/fail tests so it's not as if you'd be opening up some nefarious network. As for stricter background checks that's a bit tougher to crack, but I think you could nullify a lot of that with class licences and other requirements.
In order to own certain weapons you already have to fill out certain paperwork, simply expanding that to cover more firearms and adapting the requirements accordingly may be a little tough, but it's certainly no excuse for total inaction, that's straight up incompetence on their part.
We aren't going to fix this stuff over night, but we have no excuse for not having made more progress already.
|
On June 13 2016 10:36 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
Maybe allowing millions of immigrants from nations where homosexuality is illegal and in many punishable by death is not a good idea? Both his parents were from Afghanistan and many at his mosque were from the middle east and likely carried those customs and beliefs with them.
Time to wake up.
Seems kind of ineffective to generalize with immigrants the way you are, when there's plenty of that already here from a previous set of immigrants.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On June 13 2016 10:30 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2016 10:15 thePunGun wrote:On June 13 2016 09:54 Sermokala wrote:On June 13 2016 09:47 thePunGun wrote:bureaucrats in Washington DC would be able to strip citizens of their constitutional rights without trial or even a judges look at it How? Quite frankly that's an assumption disguised as an argument to win over gun owners, who fear for their legal right to own one. As long as your not on a potential terrorist list, you can keep your guns and potential terrorists won't! You won't get on that list just for laughs and giggles, they need proper evidence for that (like a summer vacation to Syria/Iraq or Afghanistan). I don't see how anyone in their right mind can be against that! But who decides whos a potential terrorist now and whos not? Or is it the restriction of being able to purchase a weapon being your second amendment rights being taken away that you are arguing about? It doesn't matter how much evidence you or I think may be enough its up to a judge to decide if its enough to take away your rights. Thats why people with felons or other crimes can take away your second amendment rights without a problem. The Orlando shooter wasn't even on that list, because the FBI didn't have enough evidence. Even though they interviewed him in 2! terror-related cases...What about other cases in Heston ,Kansas for example a felon illegaly bought a gun at a gunshow goes on a shootingspree, kills 3 people and wounds 15 others, this February. You think that's okay? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the second amendment, as long as you're a law-abiding citizen.... But there are some sick bastards out there, who just don't deserve the right to protect themselves with a gun as long as they endanger others! I'm entirely for closeing the gun show loophole and I've belived that they've always been fairly shady places. The point is that a comprehensive background check system is incredibly hard to imagine without loseing common concencious about it. Ie how the checks are recorded, where the checks go to be checked against, what databases's are used to decide who doesn't pass it.
To quote JFK in his famous moon speech: "[..]we do[..] things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard[..]" 
I don't think I'm qualified to propose a background check system...
All I know is it should be a nation-wide system, there is no point in giving states the freedom to choose. We know,
how "well" that works in other cases..
|
On June 13 2016 10:36 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
Maybe allowing millions of immigrants from nations where homosexuality is illegal and in many punishable by death is not a good idea? Both his parents were from Afghanistan and many at his mosque were from the middle east and likely carried those customs and beliefs with them.
Time to wake up.
The shooter was born in a nation where homosexuality was illegal. But it wasn't anywhere near the Middle East, and certainly wasn't a muslim country.
The US only made gay marriage made legal last year in 2015, homosexuality legal in 2003, and it's one of the two first world nations that still have the death penalty.
|
On June 13 2016 11:01 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2016 10:36 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
Maybe allowing millions of immigrants from nations where homosexuality is illegal and in many punishable by death is not a good idea? Both his parents were from Afghanistan and many at his mosque were from the middle east and likely carried those customs and beliefs with them.
Time to wake up. The shooter was born in a nation where homosexuality was illegal. But it wasn't anywhere near the Middle East, and certainly wasn't a muslim country. The US only made gay marriage made legal last year in 2015, homosexuality legal in 2003, and it's one of the two first world nations that still have the death penalty.
Yeah right the United State is comparable in how they have treated gays in the past 30 years to the way Saudia Arabia, Syria, Egypt, Afghanistan, etc have treated gays. Yea
Can we stop with this ridiculous notion that the U.S. is as oppressive as the Middle East?
|
On June 13 2016 11:23 SolaR- wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2016 11:01 WolfintheSheep wrote:On June 13 2016 10:36 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
Maybe allowing millions of immigrants from nations where homosexuality is illegal and in many punishable by death is not a good idea? Both his parents were from Afghanistan and many at his mosque were from the middle east and likely carried those customs and beliefs with them.
Time to wake up. The shooter was born in a nation where homosexuality was illegal. But it wasn't anywhere near the Middle East, and certainly wasn't a muslim country. The US only made gay marriage made legal last year in 2015, homosexuality legal in 2003, and it's one of the two first world nations that still have the death penalty. Yeah right the United State is comparable in how they have treated gays in the past 30 years to the way Saudia Arabia, Syria, Egypt, Afghanistan, etc have treated gays. Yea Can we stop with this ridiculous notion that the U.S. is as oppressive as the Middle East?
It was when your grandparents were growing up. It was better when your parents were growing up, but still not very nice.
And those people and attitudes don't just go away because laws get changed. Maybe we need to stop this ridiculous notion that hateful beliefs and customs can't be fostered from within the US?
|
On June 13 2016 08:10 Djzapz wrote:
As a dude who now owns guns in Canada and is planning to acquire a few more to do some target shooting, I really have no good argument for why random people should own AR15's or guns of that type. On one hand I kind of want an AR15 and I own a semi-auto rifle (a SKS)... On the other hand, it's clearly an extremely dangerous object and it can be used to kill a lot of people very rapidly. Whatever fun I may have with it while shooting up paper targets at the range just seems whimsical and meaningless next to the lives of the people who died because extremely efficient killing devices are being sold to the public. And we've all heard the asinine argument that AR15's will be available illegally or at gun shows with little to no background checks, the problem remains - easy access is not a non-issue.
I feel a bit conflicted with my beliefs on gun rights. On one hand, it's fun. I reload my ammo, develop loads for my bolt action rifle, I occasionally go out and shoot Czech milsurp 7.62x39 out of my SKS and it's a lot of fun. And yet my "right" to do that comes with certain consequences. It doesn't feel so bad up here in Canada because gun ownership is not as prevalent, and gun violence feels remote most of the time. But how does the NRA get away with specifically going against regulations such as "don't sell AR15's to people who are being investigated by the FBI"?
Guns increasingly feel like a frivolous luxury with major consequences. And yet gun people consistently refuse reasonable regulation even for safety. Why should we spend time filling out annoying forms and going through annoying bureaucracy just because a few nutjobs shoot up schools and gay bars? Because filling out paper is easy. It doesn't fucking matter. I may have my restricted firearms license in 4-5 months (pending slow admin and background checks) and I'll be able to purchase a handgun shortly after that, I had to take 2 safety classes and I'll have to take 1 competency class and I'll need to go shoot at least once a year and maintain my expensive shooting range membership to be able to keep the P226 I intend to buy. It cost me $300 in formations, I'll have to dish out $300 a year for my range membership on top of the stacks of paperwork. It's hard to get firearms here and that's fine.
it's easy for the NRA and other gun's rights activists to spin any (even what some most would consider sensible) legislation into an act of "gun grabbing", because it happens.
1. microstamping
2. bullet button
3. .50 BMG
4. assault weapons ban
5. attempted ban on "armor piercing" ammo
they see things like this eroding the rights of law abiding citizens and go into full 'us vs them' mode and it helps no one. we probably won't see much sensible gun legislation passed if we keep making firearms a dirty word, and it doesn't help that every time something like this happens people who are not firearms savvy have knee-jerk reactions.
|
On June 13 2016 11:33 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2016 11:23 SolaR- wrote:On June 13 2016 11:01 WolfintheSheep wrote:On June 13 2016 10:36 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
Maybe allowing millions of immigrants from nations where homosexuality is illegal and in many punishable by death is not a good idea? Both his parents were from Afghanistan and many at his mosque were from the middle east and likely carried those customs and beliefs with them.
Time to wake up. The shooter was born in a nation where homosexuality was illegal. But it wasn't anywhere near the Middle East, and certainly wasn't a muslim country. The US only made gay marriage made legal last year in 2015, homosexuality legal in 2003, and it's one of the two first world nations that still have the death penalty. Yeah right the United State is comparable in how they have treated gays in the past 30 years to the way Saudia Arabia, Syria, Egypt, Afghanistan, etc have treated gays. Yea Can we stop with this ridiculous notion that the U.S. is as oppressive as the Middle East? It was when your grandparents were growing up. It was better when your parents were growing up, but still not very nice. And those people and attitudes don't just go away because laws get changed. Maybe we need to stop this ridiculous notion that hateful beliefs and customs can't be fostered from within the US?
Anyone can have hateful customs or beliefs anywhere, I don't disagree with that. However, I feel confident in saying that the level of fear that homosexuals fear in most Islam states has never been at the same level at any point in America. Gays are executed there and thrown off roof tops. Please source that happening the U.S in recent history. I am not speaking of individual actions, but actions performed by government institutions.
There is prejudice against gays in almost every country, I don't disagree with that. What I am saying is the degree of hatred is no where near comparable to the Middle East. It is such barbarism that reminds me closely of the Spanish Inquisition.
|
On June 13 2016 11:45 SolaR- wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2016 11:33 WolfintheSheep wrote:On June 13 2016 11:23 SolaR- wrote:On June 13 2016 11:01 WolfintheSheep wrote:On June 13 2016 10:36 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
Maybe allowing millions of immigrants from nations where homosexuality is illegal and in many punishable by death is not a good idea? Both his parents were from Afghanistan and many at his mosque were from the middle east and likely carried those customs and beliefs with them.
Time to wake up. The shooter was born in a nation where homosexuality was illegal. But it wasn't anywhere near the Middle East, and certainly wasn't a muslim country. The US only made gay marriage made legal last year in 2015, homosexuality legal in 2003, and it's one of the two first world nations that still have the death penalty. Yeah right the United State is comparable in how they have treated gays in the past 30 years to the way Saudia Arabia, Syria, Egypt, Afghanistan, etc have treated gays. Yea Can we stop with this ridiculous notion that the U.S. is as oppressive as the Middle East? It was when your grandparents were growing up. It was better when your parents were growing up, but still not very nice. And those people and attitudes don't just go away because laws get changed. Maybe we need to stop this ridiculous notion that hateful beliefs and customs can't be fostered from within the US? Anyone can have hateful customs or beliefs anywhere, I don't disagree with that. However, I feel confident in saying that the level of fear that homosexuals fear in most Islam states has never been at the same level at any point in America. Gays are executed there and thrown off roof tops. Please source that happening the U.S in recent history. I am not speaking of individual actions, but actions performed by government institutions. There is prejudice against gays in almost every country, I don't disagree with that. What I am saying is the degree of hatred is no where near comparable to the Middle East. It is such barbarism that reminds me closely of the Spanish Inquisition.
40s and 50s homosexuality was treated as a mental illness, and were subject to all the lovely "treatments" that mid-century quack medicine was known for: castration, electro-shock therapy, lobotomies, etc.
And homosexuals were hunted by police much like child predators are today.
Not limited to the US, but since that's the topic at hand.
|
On June 13 2016 06:09 Simberto wrote:
Well, american gun culture is just utterly alien to me, and a lot of other europeans. Feel free to explain it better. So far i have heard "It is really not like your impression of it".
So i will write my impression now, and you can feel free to correct it:
I am ignoring the obvious reason ones here (Hunting, defense against animals in wilderness) that are not really something most people object and which are also quite common in europe.
Reasons to own guns are usually named as one of the two:
(1) Recreational
(2) Self-Defense
(3) Protection against the evil government
Recreational means shooting stuff for fun and possibly roasting bacon on rifles.
Self-Defense does not actually appear to work as far as i know, as you are far more likely to be in danger if you own a gun than if you don't.
Protection against the government is just silly.
The big cons are:
(a) A lot of guys get intentionally shot.
(b) a lot of people get accidentally shot.
The reason for (a) is that if there are more guns around, more crimes involve guns, and a crime involving guns has a much higher chance of getting people shot. The reason for (b) is similar. If there are more guns around, it is much more likely that a five-year old will shoot his sister.
To me, the cons just outweigh the pros massively. Everyone is more safe with fewer guns around, and i don't see what is gained if you have more guns around. Please explain this american gun culture in terms a european can understand, because to me it just seems that a bunch of people are incredibly irrational in a way that makes no sense whatsoever to me and that i simply can not comprehend. (Though to be honest you do have Donald Trump as a presidential candidate, so maybe that is indeed that reason)
think about how absurdly dangerous it is driving a car at freeway speeds, yet no one hesitates to do it even with small children in the car. the same comfort that you have getting into a car day after day is the same comfort that well practiced gun owners feel about firearms.
if you take away everything from the equation (what they are designed to do, what we need them for, what safety features have been developed, etc), aside from the objective death statistics, you will see that cars result in more non-suicide deaths than firearms, but you are probably absolutely comfortable with driving in / sitting in / walking on the same streets as a car.
but when there's a car accident or a massive pileup on a freeway where people are killed does anyone blame "car culture"? no one does, because the truth is we accept the deaths as collateral because we like the convenience.
in american gun culture, a private citizen owning a firearm is the ultimate symbol of personal liberty because it doesn't matter if you're and evil dictator with billions of dollars at your behest, an army at your back, and all the political and social sway in the world if you have a .308 in the head.
|
On June 13 2016 11:53 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2016 11:45 SolaR- wrote:On June 13 2016 11:33 WolfintheSheep wrote:On June 13 2016 11:23 SolaR- wrote:On June 13 2016 11:01 WolfintheSheep wrote:On June 13 2016 10:36 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
Maybe allowing millions of immigrants from nations where homosexuality is illegal and in many punishable by death is not a good idea? Both his parents were from Afghanistan and many at his mosque were from the middle east and likely carried those customs and beliefs with them.
Time to wake up. The shooter was born in a nation where homosexuality was illegal. But it wasn't anywhere near the Middle East, and certainly wasn't a muslim country. The US only made gay marriage made legal last year in 2015, homosexuality legal in 2003, and it's one of the two first world nations that still have the death penalty. Yeah right the United State is comparable in how they have treated gays in the past 30 years to the way Saudia Arabia, Syria, Egypt, Afghanistan, etc have treated gays. Yea Can we stop with this ridiculous notion that the U.S. is as oppressive as the Middle East? It was when your grandparents were growing up. It was better when your parents were growing up, but still not very nice. And those people and attitudes don't just go away because laws get changed. Maybe we need to stop this ridiculous notion that hateful beliefs and customs can't be fostered from within the US? Anyone can have hateful customs or beliefs anywhere, I don't disagree with that. However, I feel confident in saying that the level of fear that homosexuals fear in most Islam states has never been at the same level at any point in America. Gays are executed there and thrown off roof tops. Please source that happening the U.S in recent history. I am not speaking of individual actions, but actions performed by government institutions. There is prejudice against gays in almost every country, I don't disagree with that. What I am saying is the degree of hatred is no where near comparable to the Middle East. It is such barbarism that reminds me closely of the Spanish Inquisition. 40s and 50s homosexuality was treated as a mental illness, and were subject to all the lovely "treatments" that mid-century quack medicine was known for: castration, electro-shock therapy, lobotomies, etc. And homosexuals were hunted by police much like child predators are today. Not limited to the US, but since that's the topic at hand.
So you are comparing 60-70 years ago to today? It is still not comparable even then. Being treated as a mental illness compared to being executed?
The western world including the U.S. has modernized tremendously in the past century. It is time for the Middle East to catch up, however, they have shown a tenacity to cling to their barbaric beliefs. They have refused to progress with the rest of us and have shown absolutely no signs to assimilate and reform.
|
On June 13 2016 07:27 Jockmcplop wrote:
If anyone thinks they can stand up to the USA with some guns they are deluded. If the guy in charge was a despotic tyrannical maniac then sorry guys, he's got armed drones, tanks, huge bombs etc.
it's not necessarily about fighting an oppressive government in some 1984 scenario. it's about the fact that firearms are the greatest equalizer and are an effective LAST MEASURE against coercion (again, not necessarily against a fantastical totalitarian big brother).
|
On June 13 2016 11:59 SolaR- wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2016 11:53 WolfintheSheep wrote:On June 13 2016 11:45 SolaR- wrote:On June 13 2016 11:33 WolfintheSheep wrote:On June 13 2016 11:23 SolaR- wrote:On June 13 2016 11:01 WolfintheSheep wrote:On June 13 2016 10:36 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
Maybe allowing millions of immigrants from nations where homosexuality is illegal and in many punishable by death is not a good idea? Both his parents were from Afghanistan and many at his mosque were from the middle east and likely carried those customs and beliefs with them.
Time to wake up. The shooter was born in a nation where homosexuality was illegal. But it wasn't anywhere near the Middle East, and certainly wasn't a muslim country. The US only made gay marriage made legal last year in 2015, homosexuality legal in 2003, and it's one of the two first world nations that still have the death penalty. Yeah right the United State is comparable in how they have treated gays in the past 30 years to the way Saudia Arabia, Syria, Egypt, Afghanistan, etc have treated gays. Yea Can we stop with this ridiculous notion that the U.S. is as oppressive as the Middle East? It was when your grandparents were growing up. It was better when your parents were growing up, but still not very nice. And those people and attitudes don't just go away because laws get changed. Maybe we need to stop this ridiculous notion that hateful beliefs and customs can't be fostered from within the US? Anyone can have hateful customs or beliefs anywhere, I don't disagree with that. However, I feel confident in saying that the level of fear that homosexuals fear in most Islam states has never been at the same level at any point in America. Gays are executed there and thrown off roof tops. Please source that happening the U.S in recent history. I am not speaking of individual actions, but actions performed by government institutions. There is prejudice against gays in almost every country, I don't disagree with that. What I am saying is the degree of hatred is no where near comparable to the Middle East. It is such barbarism that reminds me closely of the Spanish Inquisition. 40s and 50s homosexuality was treated as a mental illness, and were subject to all the lovely "treatments" that mid-century quack medicine was known for: castration, electro-shock therapy, lobotomies, etc. And homosexuals were hunted by police much like child predators are today. Not limited to the US, but since that's the topic at hand. So you are comparing 60-70 years ago to today? It is still not comparable even then. Being treated as a mental illness compared to being executed? The western world including the U.S. has modernized tremendously in the past century. It is time for the Middle East to catch up, however, they have shown a tenacity to cling to their barbaric beliefs. They have refused to progress with the rest of us and have shown absolutely no signs to assimilate and reform.
And the US clings to its barbaric beliefs for decades longer than most of the western world.
You aren't the gold standard. In most cases the US has the slowest progressive movement among first world nations.
And third world nations don't get a pass because they're third world, but there is an expectation and understanding that poorer countries will inevitably be slower to give up on culture and beliefs.
|
On June 13 2016 12:11 dontforgetosmile wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2016 07:27 Jockmcplop wrote:
If anyone thinks they can stand up to the USA with some guns they are deluded. If the guy in charge was a despotic tyrannical maniac then sorry guys, he's got armed drones, tanks, huge bombs etc.
it's not necessarily about fighting an oppressive government in some 1984 scenario. it's about the fact that firearms are the greatest equalizer and are an effective LAST MEASURE against coercion (again, not necessarily against a fantastical totalitarian big brother).
I want the use of biological weapons to be legal. It is the greatest equalizer and an effective last measure against coercion. It is my right as a citizen to be able to defend myself using biological weapons against any hypothetical attack.
|
On June 13 2016 12:22 Hier wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2016 12:11 dontforgetosmile wrote:On June 13 2016 07:27 Jockmcplop wrote:
If anyone thinks they can stand up to the USA with some guns they are deluded. If the guy in charge was a despotic tyrannical maniac then sorry guys, he's got armed drones, tanks, huge bombs etc.
it's not necessarily about fighting an oppressive government in some 1984 scenario. it's about the fact that firearms are the greatest equalizer and are an effective LAST MEASURE against coercion (again, not necessarily against a fantastical totalitarian big brother). I want the use of biological weapons to be legal. It is the greatest equalizer and an effective last measure against coercion. It is my right as a citizen to be able to defend myself using biological weapons against any hypothetical attack.
we really gonna go down the slippery slope argument?
i'll take a mini nuke pls. like fallout.
|
On June 13 2016 11:55 dontforgetosmile wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2016 06:09 Simberto wrote:
Well, american gun culture is just utterly alien to me, and a lot of other europeans. Feel free to explain it better. So far i have heard "It is really not like your impression of it".
So i will write my impression now, and you can feel free to correct it:
I am ignoring the obvious reason ones here (Hunting, defense against animals in wilderness) that are not really something most people object and which are also quite common in europe.
Reasons to own guns are usually named as one of the two:
(1) Recreational
(2) Self-Defense
(3) Protection against the evil government
Recreational means shooting stuff for fun and possibly roasting bacon on rifles.
Self-Defense does not actually appear to work as far as i know, as you are far more likely to be in danger if you own a gun than if you don't.
Protection against the government is just silly.
The big cons are:
(a) A lot of guys get intentionally shot.
(b) a lot of people get accidentally shot.
The reason for (a) is that if there are more guns around, more crimes involve guns, and a crime involving guns has a much higher chance of getting people shot. The reason for (b) is similar. If there are more guns around, it is much more likely that a five-year old will shoot his sister.
To me, the cons just outweigh the pros massively. Everyone is more safe with fewer guns around, and i don't see what is gained if you have more guns around. Please explain this american gun culture in terms a european can understand, because to me it just seems that a bunch of people are incredibly irrational in a way that makes no sense whatsoever to me and that i simply can not comprehend. (Though to be honest you do have Donald Trump as a presidential candidate, so maybe that is indeed that reason) think about how absurdly dangerous it is driving a car at freeway speeds, yet no one hesitates to do it even with small children in the car.
Which is why we're all grateful that the automobile industry lobby never came around to the idea that it would be against freedom to force people to have a license before they are allowed to drive, by the way.
|
On June 13 2016 12:34 dontforgetosmile wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2016 12:22 Hier wrote:On June 13 2016 12:11 dontforgetosmile wrote:On June 13 2016 07:27 Jockmcplop wrote:
If anyone thinks they can stand up to the USA with some guns they are deluded. If the guy in charge was a despotic tyrannical maniac then sorry guys, he's got armed drones, tanks, huge bombs etc.
it's not necessarily about fighting an oppressive government in some 1984 scenario. it's about the fact that firearms are the greatest equalizer and are an effective LAST MEASURE against coercion (again, not necessarily against a fantastical totalitarian big brother). I want the use of biological weapons to be legal. It is the greatest equalizer and an effective last measure against coercion. It is my right as a citizen to be able to defend myself using biological weapons against any hypothetical attack. we really gonna go down the slippery slope argument? i'll take a mini nuke pls. like fallout.
Well, you can either discuss the issue purely from a philosophical point of view, or land back to reality and talk about real pros and cons that are relevant today. Let us know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
