|
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 15 2016 19:03 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2016 18:37 Incognoto wrote:On June 15 2016 18:30 Salazarz wrote:
@ Incognoto
So because alcohol is harmful, other stupid shit should be allowed as well? Where's the logic in that. There are double standards when it comes to what is "acceptable" and what isn't, I'm pointing that out. The arguments which are being used in this thread as reasons to ban (note, I said BAN not regulate) simply don't carry much weight. Where is the issue in pointing that out? On June 15 2016 18:30 bluzi wrote:
You are pointing out a real problem (Alcohol) !!! why does it makes the gun problem OK ? because we have other problems in the world ? if you open a thread about smoking/drinking i will be right there saying you are CORRECT my friend . You might want to blanket ban alcohol, but I don't. I value free societies. Even if it means there are consequences to it. The argument "Something else bad is happening, so we don't need to do anything about this bad thing we were just talking about" can be made about every single problem. It is a very weak argument and does not carry any weight, since there is not connection whatsoever between doing something about guns and doing something about alcohol. Furthermore, you are automatically assuming that the other person you are talking to is actually for the status quo with regards to alcohol, when you have no reason to believe that is the case. What you are doing is deflecting a discussion into a different direction, which does not lead to solutions. This is the thread to talk about guns, not about alcohol. Feel free to make a thread about alcohol, and i will discuss it with you there. And i think a big problem here is that few people are actually talking about the same thing. I don't think anyone here actually wants to completely ban all guns in all circumstances. What i think people are talking about is european-style regulation, which is usually somewhere between what Tula describes the law is in Austria and what deacon.frost describes the law to be in the Czech republic. The main idea is a change of attitude from the american "Guns are a holy eternal right which may not be infringed in any way whatsoever" to "guns are a privilege". Think about regulation similar to cars. If you want to drive a car, you have to have a drivers license, you need to register it, and you need to buy insurance in case you hurt someone with it. Why is it so unreasonable to treat guns the same way? Have a gunners license, a central gun register and a need to buy insurance for them (The last one is not that important i guess)
Euro-centrism is everywhere on TL. Frankly, I fail to see what American laws have to do with people living in Europe, except for them to tell us how we're wrong on so many issues because we don't have X thing/policy/law you have in Europe. For all the haranguing you guys do about American's being self-centered, one just has to peruse the various threads here to note how everything the Euro's do American's should do as well because obviously it's more enlightened/better.
Do you see American's telling Europeans that they have to change their attitudes/laws/opinions to coincide with our own values with the same scope? There's a reason that people in America from Europe/European descent left Europe.
How about you change your attitude and start to view guns as "the right of self-defense and to not have to grovel at the State for protection". The cops are all ready shitty enough, and, on top of that everyone has the right to defend their liberties against tyrannical Governments and don't you dare tell me that it's impossible for the US to become tyrannical because right now we have an election between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump if you haven't noticed.
Oh, by the way there is not a daily mass shooting. Even the Huffington Post debunked that crap.
|
You have to understand, this topic really makes the head of many europeans spin. On one side you have tragedy after tragedy and act all shocked again and again but still you do nothing but instead clinge to a "right" that was talking about Muskets and a tightly regulated militia.
As for Americans not telling Europeans whats what.
Uhm, as soon as hate speech laws and stuff like that comes up, i can show you americans that jump in. You also probably don't get fed as much european news as we get american ones.
Also, Countries in europe are still pretty much their own entities, People discuss mainly what goes on inside their own country with their countrymen... unless the EU does something ridiculous or something really big is happening like the Brexit, Grexit and stuff like that.
Btw: I remember plenty of Americans jumping in telling the Greeks how to handle their finances., while failing to do or plain ignoring their "own" Puerto Rico...
|
On June 15 2016 19:33 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2016 19:03 Simberto wrote:On June 15 2016 18:37 Incognoto wrote:On June 15 2016 18:30 Salazarz wrote:
@ Incognoto
So because alcohol is harmful, other stupid shit should be allowed as well? Where's the logic in that. There are double standards when it comes to what is "acceptable" and what isn't, I'm pointing that out. The arguments which are being used in this thread as reasons to ban (note, I said BAN not regulate) simply don't carry much weight. Where is the issue in pointing that out? On June 15 2016 18:30 bluzi wrote:
You are pointing out a real problem (Alcohol) !!! why does it makes the gun problem OK ? because we have other problems in the world ? if you open a thread about smoking/drinking i will be right there saying you are CORRECT my friend . You might want to blanket ban alcohol, but I don't. I value free societies. Even if it means there are consequences to it. The argument "Something else bad is happening, so we don't need to do anything about this bad thing we were just talking about" can be made about every single problem. It is a very weak argument and does not carry any weight, since there is not connection whatsoever between doing something about guns and doing something about alcohol. Furthermore, you are automatically assuming that the other person you are talking to is actually for the status quo with regards to alcohol, when you have no reason to believe that is the case. What you are doing is deflecting a discussion into a different direction, which does not lead to solutions. This is the thread to talk about guns, not about alcohol. Feel free to make a thread about alcohol, and i will discuss it with you there. And i think a big problem here is that few people are actually talking about the same thing. I don't think anyone here actually wants to completely ban all guns in all circumstances. What i think people are talking about is european-style regulation, which is usually somewhere between what Tula describes the law is in Austria and what deacon.frost describes the law to be in the Czech republic. The main idea is a change of attitude from the american "Guns are a holy eternal right which may not be infringed in any way whatsoever" to "guns are a privilege". Think about regulation similar to cars. If you want to drive a car, you have to have a drivers license, you need to register it, and you need to buy insurance in case you hurt someone with it. Why is it so unreasonable to treat guns the same way? Have a gunners license, a central gun register and a need to buy insurance for them (The last one is not that important i guess) Oh, by the way there is not a daily mass shooting. Even the Huffington Post debunked that crap.
www.gunviolencearchive.org
"A note that the data on shootingtracker.com will now comply with the standard Gun Violence Archive methodology on how mass shootings are counted.
Gun Violence Archive has always used the FBI derived definition:
FOUR or more shot and/or killed in a single event [incident], at the same general time and location, not including the shooter."
|
On June 15 2016 19:33 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2016 19:03 Simberto wrote:On June 15 2016 18:37 Incognoto wrote:On June 15 2016 18:30 Salazarz wrote:
@ Incognoto
So because alcohol is harmful, other stupid shit should be allowed as well? Where's the logic in that. There are double standards when it comes to what is "acceptable" and what isn't, I'm pointing that out. The arguments which are being used in this thread as reasons to ban (note, I said BAN not regulate) simply don't carry much weight. Where is the issue in pointing that out? On June 15 2016 18:30 bluzi wrote:
You are pointing out a real problem (Alcohol) !!! why does it makes the gun problem OK ? because we have other problems in the world ? if you open a thread about smoking/drinking i will be right there saying you are CORRECT my friend . You might want to blanket ban alcohol, but I don't. I value free societies. Even if it means there are consequences to it. The argument "Something else bad is happening, so we don't need to do anything about this bad thing we were just talking about" can be made about every single problem. It is a very weak argument and does not carry any weight, since there is not connection whatsoever between doing something about guns and doing something about alcohol. Furthermore, you are automatically assuming that the other person you are talking to is actually for the status quo with regards to alcohol, when you have no reason to believe that is the case. What you are doing is deflecting a discussion into a different direction, which does not lead to solutions. This is the thread to talk about guns, not about alcohol. Feel free to make a thread about alcohol, and i will discuss it with you there. And i think a big problem here is that few people are actually talking about the same thing. I don't think anyone here actually wants to completely ban all guns in all circumstances. What i think people are talking about is european-style regulation, which is usually somewhere between what Tula describes the law is in Austria and what deacon.frost describes the law to be in the Czech republic. The main idea is a change of attitude from the american "Guns are a holy eternal right which may not be infringed in any way whatsoever" to "guns are a privilege". Think about regulation similar to cars. If you want to drive a car, you have to have a drivers license, you need to register it, and you need to buy insurance in case you hurt someone with it. Why is it so unreasonable to treat guns the same way? Have a gunners license, a central gun register and a need to buy insurance for them (The last one is not that important i guess) Euro-centrism is everywhere on TL. Frankly, I fail to see what American laws have to do with people living in Europe, except for them to tell us how we're wrong on so many issues because we don't have X thing/policy/law you have in Europe. For all the haranguing you guys do about American's being self-centered, one just has to peruse the various threads here to note how everything the Euro's do American's should do as well because obviously it's more enlightened/better. Do you see American's telling Europeans that they have to change their attitudes/laws/opinions to coincide with our own values with the same scope? There's a reason that people in America from Europe/European descent left Europe. How about you change your attitude and start to view guns as "the right of self-defense and to not have to grovel at the State for protection". The cops are all ready shitty enough, and, on top of that everyone has the right to defend their liberties against tyrannical Governments and don't you dare tell me that it's impossible for the US to become tyrannical because right now we have an election between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump if you haven't noticed. Oh, by the way there is not a daily mass shooting. Even the Huffington Post debunked that crap.
You're very naive if you think having guns is any good against a tyrannical state in 2016.
I understand the desire for guns in a sense (if a deficient state does not protect you, or in a very big country such as the US with a tradition of militia), but how did you guys came to the conclusion that preventing idiots, terrorists and mentally ill to own guns is problematic...
|
On June 15 2016 19:44 Laurens wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2016 19:33 Wegandi wrote:On June 15 2016 19:03 Simberto wrote:On June 15 2016 18:37 Incognoto wrote:On June 15 2016 18:30 Salazarz wrote:
@ Incognoto
So because alcohol is harmful, other stupid shit should be allowed as well? Where's the logic in that. There are double standards when it comes to what is "acceptable" and what isn't, I'm pointing that out. The arguments which are being used in this thread as reasons to ban (note, I said BAN not regulate) simply don't carry much weight. Where is the issue in pointing that out? On June 15 2016 18:30 bluzi wrote:
You are pointing out a real problem (Alcohol) !!! why does it makes the gun problem OK ? because we have other problems in the world ? if you open a thread about smoking/drinking i will be right there saying you are CORRECT my friend . You might want to blanket ban alcohol, but I don't. I value free societies. Even if it means there are consequences to it. The argument "Something else bad is happening, so we don't need to do anything about this bad thing we were just talking about" can be made about every single problem. It is a very weak argument and does not carry any weight, since there is not connection whatsoever between doing something about guns and doing something about alcohol. Furthermore, you are automatically assuming that the other person you are talking to is actually for the status quo with regards to alcohol, when you have no reason to believe that is the case. What you are doing is deflecting a discussion into a different direction, which does not lead to solutions. This is the thread to talk about guns, not about alcohol. Feel free to make a thread about alcohol, and i will discuss it with you there. And i think a big problem here is that few people are actually talking about the same thing. I don't think anyone here actually wants to completely ban all guns in all circumstances. What i think people are talking about is european-style regulation, which is usually somewhere between what Tula describes the law is in Austria and what deacon.frost describes the law to be in the Czech republic. The main idea is a change of attitude from the american "Guns are a holy eternal right which may not be infringed in any way whatsoever" to "guns are a privilege". Think about regulation similar to cars. If you want to drive a car, you have to have a drivers license, you need to register it, and you need to buy insurance in case you hurt someone with it. Why is it so unreasonable to treat guns the same way? Have a gunners license, a central gun register and a need to buy insurance for them (The last one is not that important i guess) Oh, by the way there is not a daily mass shooting. Even the Huffington Post debunked that crap. www.gunviolencearchive.org"A note that the data on shootingtracker.com will now comply with the standard Gun Violence Archive methodology on how mass shootings are counted. Gun Violence Archive has always used the FBI derived definition: FOUR or more shot and/or killed in a single event [incident], at the same general time and location, not including the shooter."
1) Here is the proper progressive link for you so you can't claim partisan bias: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/12/no-there-were-not-355-mass-shootings-this-year
2) The vast majority of gun-related homicides/shootings occur because of the DRUG WAR, do you understand? Addressing the countries drug prohibitions will have such a huge benefit of reducing the scope of gun homicides that it'll make this stupid meme be a thing of the past. There were over a 120 people shot/killed in Chicago within the first 10 days this year, but did you hear anything about that in the mainstream media? Nope. It's because news like that doesn't advance their anti-2A agenda. Address drug prohibition and we'll reduce gun-deaths by over 3/4's.
Also, people in Europe simply don't grasp that America is home to 330+ million people, bordering a semi-failed narco-State (Mexico) and the heavily inundated drug trafficking that happens in Central/South America that's brought up into the States. You should see some of the statistics in the border states/areas. Quote on quote banning/regulating guns will have a very miniscule effect if any in curbing the vast majority of gun related homicides in this country. So even from the practical POV you couldn't be more wrong. (No, magically waving the wand of legislation is not going to make the violence from drug cartels/gangs go away)
|
On June 15 2016 19:56 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2016 19:44 Laurens wrote:On June 15 2016 19:33 Wegandi wrote:On June 15 2016 19:03 Simberto wrote:On June 15 2016 18:37 Incognoto wrote:On June 15 2016 18:30 Salazarz wrote:
@ Incognoto
So because alcohol is harmful, other stupid shit should be allowed as well? Where's the logic in that. There are double standards when it comes to what is "acceptable" and what isn't, I'm pointing that out. The arguments which are being used in this thread as reasons to ban (note, I said BAN not regulate) simply don't carry much weight. Where is the issue in pointing that out? On June 15 2016 18:30 bluzi wrote:
You are pointing out a real problem (Alcohol) !!! why does it makes the gun problem OK ? because we have other problems in the world ? if you open a thread about smoking/drinking i will be right there saying you are CORRECT my friend . You might want to blanket ban alcohol, but I don't. I value free societies. Even if it means there are consequences to it. The argument "Something else bad is happening, so we don't need to do anything about this bad thing we were just talking about" can be made about every single problem. It is a very weak argument and does not carry any weight, since there is not connection whatsoever between doing something about guns and doing something about alcohol. Furthermore, you are automatically assuming that the other person you are talking to is actually for the status quo with regards to alcohol, when you have no reason to believe that is the case. What you are doing is deflecting a discussion into a different direction, which does not lead to solutions. This is the thread to talk about guns, not about alcohol. Feel free to make a thread about alcohol, and i will discuss it with you there. And i think a big problem here is that few people are actually talking about the same thing. I don't think anyone here actually wants to completely ban all guns in all circumstances. What i think people are talking about is european-style regulation, which is usually somewhere between what Tula describes the law is in Austria and what deacon.frost describes the law to be in the Czech republic. The main idea is a change of attitude from the american "Guns are a holy eternal right which may not be infringed in any way whatsoever" to "guns are a privilege". Think about regulation similar to cars. If you want to drive a car, you have to have a drivers license, you need to register it, and you need to buy insurance in case you hurt someone with it. Why is it so unreasonable to treat guns the same way? Have a gunners license, a central gun register and a need to buy insurance for them (The last one is not that important i guess) Oh, by the way there is not a daily mass shooting. Even the Huffington Post debunked that crap. www.gunviolencearchive.org"A note that the data on shootingtracker.com will now comply with the standard Gun Violence Archive methodology on how mass shootings are counted. Gun Violence Archive has always used the FBI derived definition: FOUR or more shot and/or killed in a single event [incident], at the same general time and location, not including the shooter." 1) Here is the proper progressive link for you so you can't claim partisan bias: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/12/no-there-were-not-355-mass-shootings-this-year
All I see in that link is that they try to change the definition of mass shooting to 3-4 killed instead of 3-4 injured.
Using the FBI derived definition quoted above, the statistic stands.
|
On June 15 2016 19:46 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2016 19:33 Wegandi wrote:On June 15 2016 19:03 Simberto wrote:On June 15 2016 18:37 Incognoto wrote:On June 15 2016 18:30 Salazarz wrote:
@ Incognoto
So because alcohol is harmful, other stupid shit should be allowed as well? Where's the logic in that. There are double standards when it comes to what is "acceptable" and what isn't, I'm pointing that out. The arguments which are being used in this thread as reasons to ban (note, I said BAN not regulate) simply don't carry much weight. Where is the issue in pointing that out? On June 15 2016 18:30 bluzi wrote:
You are pointing out a real problem (Alcohol) !!! why does it makes the gun problem OK ? because we have other problems in the world ? if you open a thread about smoking/drinking i will be right there saying you are CORRECT my friend . You might want to blanket ban alcohol, but I don't. I value free societies. Even if it means there are consequences to it. The argument "Something else bad is happening, so we don't need to do anything about this bad thing we were just talking about" can be made about every single problem. It is a very weak argument and does not carry any weight, since there is not connection whatsoever between doing something about guns and doing something about alcohol. Furthermore, you are automatically assuming that the other person you are talking to is actually for the status quo with regards to alcohol, when you have no reason to believe that is the case. What you are doing is deflecting a discussion into a different direction, which does not lead to solutions. This is the thread to talk about guns, not about alcohol. Feel free to make a thread about alcohol, and i will discuss it with you there. And i think a big problem here is that few people are actually talking about the same thing. I don't think anyone here actually wants to completely ban all guns in all circumstances. What i think people are talking about is european-style regulation, which is usually somewhere between what Tula describes the law is in Austria and what deacon.frost describes the law to be in the Czech republic. The main idea is a change of attitude from the american "Guns are a holy eternal right which may not be infringed in any way whatsoever" to "guns are a privilege". Think about regulation similar to cars. If you want to drive a car, you have to have a drivers license, you need to register it, and you need to buy insurance in case you hurt someone with it. Why is it so unreasonable to treat guns the same way? Have a gunners license, a central gun register and a need to buy insurance for them (The last one is not that important i guess) Euro-centrism is everywhere on TL. Frankly, I fail to see what American laws have to do with people living in Europe, except for them to tell us how we're wrong on so many issues because we don't have X thing/policy/law you have in Europe. For all the haranguing you guys do about American's being self-centered, one just has to peruse the various threads here to note how everything the Euro's do American's should do as well because obviously it's more enlightened/better. Do you see American's telling Europeans that they have to change their attitudes/laws/opinions to coincide with our own values with the same scope? There's a reason that people in America from Europe/European descent left Europe. How about you change your attitude and start to view guns as "the right of self-defense and to not have to grovel at the State for protection". The cops are all ready shitty enough, and, on top of that everyone has the right to defend their liberties against tyrannical Governments and don't you dare tell me that it's impossible for the US to become tyrannical because right now we have an election between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump if you haven't noticed. Oh, by the way there is not a daily mass shooting. Even the Huffington Post debunked that crap. You're very naive if you think having guns is any good against a tyrannical state in 2016. I understand the desire for guns in a sense (if a deficient state does not protect you, or in a very big country such as the US with a tradition of militia), but how did you guys came to the conclusion that preventing idiots, terrorists and mentally ill to own guns is problematic...
Because the Government cannot be trusted to not abuse their powers. Oh, this increase of State power will only serve X purpose. Yeah sure, and I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
|
On June 15 2016 19:58 Laurens wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2016 19:56 Wegandi wrote:On June 15 2016 19:44 Laurens wrote:On June 15 2016 19:33 Wegandi wrote:On June 15 2016 19:03 Simberto wrote:On June 15 2016 18:37 Incognoto wrote:On June 15 2016 18:30 Salazarz wrote:
@ Incognoto
So because alcohol is harmful, other stupid shit should be allowed as well? Where's the logic in that. There are double standards when it comes to what is "acceptable" and what isn't, I'm pointing that out. The arguments which are being used in this thread as reasons to ban (note, I said BAN not regulate) simply don't carry much weight. Where is the issue in pointing that out? On June 15 2016 18:30 bluzi wrote:
You are pointing out a real problem (Alcohol) !!! why does it makes the gun problem OK ? because we have other problems in the world ? if you open a thread about smoking/drinking i will be right there saying you are CORRECT my friend . You might want to blanket ban alcohol, but I don't. I value free societies. Even if it means there are consequences to it. The argument "Something else bad is happening, so we don't need to do anything about this bad thing we were just talking about" can be made about every single problem. It is a very weak argument and does not carry any weight, since there is not connection whatsoever between doing something about guns and doing something about alcohol. Furthermore, you are automatically assuming that the other person you are talking to is actually for the status quo with regards to alcohol, when you have no reason to believe that is the case. What you are doing is deflecting a discussion into a different direction, which does not lead to solutions. This is the thread to talk about guns, not about alcohol. Feel free to make a thread about alcohol, and i will discuss it with you there. And i think a big problem here is that few people are actually talking about the same thing. I don't think anyone here actually wants to completely ban all guns in all circumstances. What i think people are talking about is european-style regulation, which is usually somewhere between what Tula describes the law is in Austria and what deacon.frost describes the law to be in the Czech republic. The main idea is a change of attitude from the american "Guns are a holy eternal right which may not be infringed in any way whatsoever" to "guns are a privilege". Think about regulation similar to cars. If you want to drive a car, you have to have a drivers license, you need to register it, and you need to buy insurance in case you hurt someone with it. Why is it so unreasonable to treat guns the same way? Have a gunners license, a central gun register and a need to buy insurance for them (The last one is not that important i guess) Oh, by the way there is not a daily mass shooting. Even the Huffington Post debunked that crap. www.gunviolencearchive.org"A note that the data on shootingtracker.com will now comply with the standard Gun Violence Archive methodology on how mass shootings are counted. Gun Violence Archive has always used the FBI derived definition: FOUR or more shot and/or killed in a single event [incident], at the same general time and location, not including the shooter." 1) Here is the proper progressive link for you so you can't claim partisan bias: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/12/no-there-were-not-355-mass-shootings-this-year All I see in that link is that they try to change the definition of mass shooting to 3-4 killed instead of 3-4 injured. Using the FBI derived definition quoted above, the statistic stands.
Not to be particularly crass, but do you read?
In fact, there have been four mass shootings this year. Or, if you count using the federal government's current criteria—three or more victims killed in an indiscriminate public rampage—there have been six mass shootings this year.
By the way you going to address any of the facts I brought up? You probably had no clue about the 120 shot in Chicago within a 10 day period did you? Of course not. When it's gangs killing each other or local community members it only matters to include in the statistics to make it seem like non-criminal America are out of control and we need to get rid of the 2A, but it's forbidden to make a big deal out of in the media because it doesn't advance their narrative and agenda.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/120-people-shot-chicago-10-days-2016-article-1.2493741
Chicago police spokesman Anthony Guglielmi blamed the surge in gun violence — which has killed on average two people every day this year — on gangs.
“So far this year, the majority of the gun violence we've seen are a result of chronic gang conflicts driven in part by social media commentary and petty disputes among rival factions,” he said in a statement
|
On June 15 2016 19:58 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2016 19:46 WhiteDog wrote:On June 15 2016 19:33 Wegandi wrote:On June 15 2016 19:03 Simberto wrote:On June 15 2016 18:37 Incognoto wrote:On June 15 2016 18:30 Salazarz wrote:
@ Incognoto
So because alcohol is harmful, other stupid shit should be allowed as well? Where's the logic in that. There are double standards when it comes to what is "acceptable" and what isn't, I'm pointing that out. The arguments which are being used in this thread as reasons to ban (note, I said BAN not regulate) simply don't carry much weight. Where is the issue in pointing that out? On June 15 2016 18:30 bluzi wrote:
You are pointing out a real problem (Alcohol) !!! why does it makes the gun problem OK ? because we have other problems in the world ? if you open a thread about smoking/drinking i will be right there saying you are CORRECT my friend . You might want to blanket ban alcohol, but I don't. I value free societies. Even if it means there are consequences to it. The argument "Something else bad is happening, so we don't need to do anything about this bad thing we were just talking about" can be made about every single problem. It is a very weak argument and does not carry any weight, since there is not connection whatsoever between doing something about guns and doing something about alcohol. Furthermore, you are automatically assuming that the other person you are talking to is actually for the status quo with regards to alcohol, when you have no reason to believe that is the case. What you are doing is deflecting a discussion into a different direction, which does not lead to solutions. This is the thread to talk about guns, not about alcohol. Feel free to make a thread about alcohol, and i will discuss it with you there. And i think a big problem here is that few people are actually talking about the same thing. I don't think anyone here actually wants to completely ban all guns in all circumstances. What i think people are talking about is european-style regulation, which is usually somewhere between what Tula describes the law is in Austria and what deacon.frost describes the law to be in the Czech republic. The main idea is a change of attitude from the american "Guns are a holy eternal right which may not be infringed in any way whatsoever" to "guns are a privilege". Think about regulation similar to cars. If you want to drive a car, you have to have a drivers license, you need to register it, and you need to buy insurance in case you hurt someone with it. Why is it so unreasonable to treat guns the same way? Have a gunners license, a central gun register and a need to buy insurance for them (The last one is not that important i guess) Euro-centrism is everywhere on TL. Frankly, I fail to see what American laws have to do with people living in Europe, except for them to tell us how we're wrong on so many issues because we don't have X thing/policy/law you have in Europe. For all the haranguing you guys do about American's being self-centered, one just has to peruse the various threads here to note how everything the Euro's do American's should do as well because obviously it's more enlightened/better. Do you see American's telling Europeans that they have to change their attitudes/laws/opinions to coincide with our own values with the same scope? There's a reason that people in America from Europe/European descent left Europe. How about you change your attitude and start to view guns as "the right of self-defense and to not have to grovel at the State for protection". The cops are all ready shitty enough, and, on top of that everyone has the right to defend their liberties against tyrannical Governments and don't you dare tell me that it's impossible for the US to become tyrannical because right now we have an election between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump if you haven't noticed. Oh, by the way there is not a daily mass shooting. Even the Huffington Post debunked that crap. You're very naive if you think having guns is any good against a tyrannical state in 2016. I understand the desire for guns in a sense (if a deficient state does not protect you, or in a very big country such as the US with a tradition of militia), but how did you guys came to the conclusion that preventing idiots, terrorists and mentally ill to own guns is problematic... Because the Government cannot be trusted to not abuse their powers. Oh, this increase of State power will only serve X purpose. Yeah sure, and I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
The state cannot be trusted, it's true. Do you know what ? A tyrannical state would butcher you with your puny gun, especially the US with what is now by far the most efficient and well armed army/police, and they will have a small number of casualties trust me... Against an untrusting state or a possible degradation towards tyranny, what you do is you create counter powers, you enforce legislation through popular demand, you make sure, through unions and such, that the law that you enforced is well respected by state officials, etc.
|
Zurich15355 Posts
The naive part is to imagine the tyrannical state ruling in opposition to the majority in 2016. If you will go to tyranny, it will be a tyranny of the majority.
|
On June 15 2016 18:37 Incognoto wrote:
You might want to blanket ban alcohol, but I don't. I value free societies. Even if it means there are consequences to it.
Nowhere did I say that I want to blanket ban alcohol. It's certainly not a bad idea to regulate it, though. Just like guns should be regulated, except guns are far more likely to be deadly and abused with a purpose so it makes sense for regulations to be tighter.
And yeah, the argument for guns being 'necessary' to counter any potential abuse of power by government or something is retarded. It doesn't hold up AT ALL in modern countries, you can't hold on to every law from 200+ years ago and treat it like some sort of a sacred truth. Even in self-defense, it's an undeniable fact backed by tons of statistical data that you are more likely to actually be harmed if you are armed.
|
Got to agree, the "Tyrannical Government" excuse is the most delusional thing i have heard on this forum, why don't you pro gun owners just admit you like having guns. At least think of a better excuse, anything but this bs tyrannical state stuff.
I understand the media in the USA is well known for fear mongering but come on, its 2016.
|
On June 15 2016 20:21 Reaps wrote:
Got to agree, the "Tyrannical Government" excuse is the most delusional thing i have heard on this forum, why don't you pro gun owners just admit you like having guns. At least think of a better excuse, anything but this bs tyrannical state stuff.
I understand the media in the USA is well known for fear mongering but come on, its 2016.
Beyond that being a complete delusion to believe that tyranny is impossible in 2016, you mustn't been around 10 years ago when all the "lefties" were shouting Tyranny daily while Bush was in office. Of course, when a (D) is in office, then it's truly absurd. I'm sure if Trump wins we'll start hearing again about how the US is in a state of tyranny by all the proggy sources. So, please, spare me the "it's impossible" shtick.
|
On June 15 2016 20:25 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2016 20:21 Reaps wrote:
Got to agree, the "Tyrannical Government" excuse is the most delusional thing i have heard on this forum, why don't you pro gun owners just admit you like having guns. At least think of a better excuse, anything but this bs tyrannical state stuff.
I understand the media in the USA is well known for fear mongering but come on, its 2016.
Beyond that being a complete delusion to believe that tyranny is impossible in 2016, you mustn't been around 10 years ago when all the "lefties" were shouting Tyranny daily while Bush was in office. Of course, when a (D) is in office, then it's truly absurd. I'm sure if Trump wins we'll start hearing again about how the US is in a state of tyranny by all the proggy sources. So, please, spare me the "it's impossible" shtick.
I suggest you take off the tinfoil hat, if what you say is even remotely true (which it isn't), there is not a single thing you and your guns will do apart from increase the chance of you dieing.
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On June 15 2016 20:21 Reaps wrote:
Got to agree, the "Tyrannical Government" excuse is the most delusional thing i have heard on this forum, why don't you pro gun owners just admit you like having guns. At least think of a better excuse, anything but this bs tyrannical state stuff.
I understand the media in the USA is well known for fear mongering but come on, its 2016.
Well, the same way is stupid to argument about it "why do you need AR-15? You don't.". In my eyes it is same BS as "government may be evil one day". People have/do lot of useless stuff. Some people love military weapons. Usually because they are cheap, shoot really well(<3 M4) and are reliable(basically their funfactor is high). The same way some people love cars with powerful engines even though they can drive cars with pitiful engines  Who cares why do I need it. Even if I need it in bed so I can sleep at night it's my business
(and yes, I know a gun owner who sleeps with his SA vz.58)
|
On June 15 2016 20:00 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2016 19:58 Laurens wrote:On June 15 2016 19:56 Wegandi wrote:On June 15 2016 19:44 Laurens wrote:On June 15 2016 19:33 Wegandi wrote:On June 15 2016 19:03 Simberto wrote:On June 15 2016 18:37 Incognoto wrote:On June 15 2016 18:30 Salazarz wrote:
@ Incognoto
So because alcohol is harmful, other stupid shit should be allowed as well? Where's the logic in that. There are double standards when it comes to what is "acceptable" and what isn't, I'm pointing that out. The arguments which are being used in this thread as reasons to ban (note, I said BAN not regulate) simply don't carry much weight. Where is the issue in pointing that out? On June 15 2016 18:30 bluzi wrote:
You are pointing out a real problem (Alcohol) !!! why does it makes the gun problem OK ? because we have other problems in the world ? if you open a thread about smoking/drinking i will be right there saying you are CORRECT my friend . You might want to blanket ban alcohol, but I don't. I value free societies. Even if it means there are consequences to it. The argument "Something else bad is happening, so we don't need to do anything about this bad thing we were just talking about" can be made about every single problem. It is a very weak argument and does not carry any weight, since there is not connection whatsoever between doing something about guns and doing something about alcohol. Furthermore, you are automatically assuming that the other person you are talking to is actually for the status quo with regards to alcohol, when you have no reason to believe that is the case. What you are doing is deflecting a discussion into a different direction, which does not lead to solutions. This is the thread to talk about guns, not about alcohol. Feel free to make a thread about alcohol, and i will discuss it with you there. And i think a big problem here is that few people are actually talking about the same thing. I don't think anyone here actually wants to completely ban all guns in all circumstances. What i think people are talking about is european-style regulation, which is usually somewhere between what Tula describes the law is in Austria and what deacon.frost describes the law to be in the Czech republic. The main idea is a change of attitude from the american "Guns are a holy eternal right which may not be infringed in any way whatsoever" to "guns are a privilege". Think about regulation similar to cars. If you want to drive a car, you have to have a drivers license, you need to register it, and you need to buy insurance in case you hurt someone with it. Why is it so unreasonable to treat guns the same way? Have a gunners license, a central gun register and a need to buy insurance for them (The last one is not that important i guess) Oh, by the way there is not a daily mass shooting. Even the Huffington Post debunked that crap. www.gunviolencearchive.org"A note that the data on shootingtracker.com will now comply with the standard Gun Violence Archive methodology on how mass shootings are counted. Gun Violence Archive has always used the FBI derived definition: FOUR or more shot and/or killed in a single event [incident], at the same general time and location, not including the shooter." 1) Here is the proper progressive link for you so you can't claim partisan bias: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/12/no-there-were-not-355-mass-shootings-this-year All I see in that link is that they try to change the definition of mass shooting to 3-4 killed instead of 3-4 injured. Using the FBI derived definition quoted above, the statistic stands. Not to be particularly crass, but do you read? Show nested quote +In fact, there have been four mass shootings this year. Or, if you count using the federal government's current criteria—three or more victims killed in an indiscriminate public rampage—there have been six mass shootings this year.
I do read. Like I said, one definition talks about 4 or more KILLED, and the other about 4 or more WOUNDED.
My link says the definition of "mass shooting" is 4 or more WOUNDED, by this definition the statistic holds. "Mass murder" is when 4 or more are killed.
Your link (and quote) says the definition of mass shooting is 3 or more KILLED, by this definition the statistic does not hold.
http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/methodology
Now whether they die or not seems entirely irrelevant to me. On average, more than once a day, someone shoots 4+ ppl in the USA. That is just shocking.
|
On June 15 2016 19:03 Simberto wrote:
And i think a big problem here is that few people are actually talking about the same thing. I don't think anyone here actually wants to completely ban all guns in all circumstances. What i think people are talking about is european-style regulation, which is usually somewhere between what Tula describes the law is in Austria and what deacon.frost describes the law to be in the Czech republic.
The main idea is a change of attitude from the american "Guns are a holy eternal right which may not be infringed in any way whatsoever" to "guns are a privilege".
Think about regulation similar to cars. If you want to drive a car, you have to have a drivers license, you need to register it, and you need to buy insurance in case you hurt someone with it. Why is it so unreasonable to treat guns the same way? Have a gunners license, a central gun register and a need to buy insurance for them (The last one is not that important i guess)
Well if those are your views, then I'm not disagreeing with you. Those are my views as well. Having a car, drinking, shooting guns and spoking are activities which fall under the "freedom" right. Freedom being, "I get to do whatever I want, as long as I don't infringe upon the rights or lives of others". You can do any of those activities but you are required to respect the lives and rights of others when doing so.
So why did I bring up alcohol? Well not everyone in this thread have views as nuanced as yours in terms of "no blanket ban, more regulation". People were starting to go down the "guns are useless and unnecessary" lane, and using that as an argument against gun ownership in general. That kind of argumentation is completely dishonest given that we have a plethora of useless yet dangerous past times which none of those people are getting riled up over. Hence my comparaison of something which is inherently risky (firearms) to something else which is inherently risky (alcohol). I think the comparaison is more than fair.
On June 15 2016 19:15 Velr wrote:
You took my post a lttle wrong and wtf has alcohol to do with this.
My issues is simple. The arguments people bring up for guns, are factually disproven and don't even adress the issue that many people even oppose a simple registry, let alone a "gun license" on the grounds of bs-arguments/FREEDOM.
People should at least have the balls to say that their freedom to go out and just buy/use Semi-Autos is worth a daily mass shooting. I still would disagree, but at least that would be honest.
From your previous post:
The only Argument that really holds up is FREEDOM (if you want to call this an argument), everything else falls flat on his face.
If the gun ownership in the US would have anything to do with hunting, there wouldn't be any deer left (and you wouldn't buy military weapons).
If it would have anything to do with self defense, people would want handguns instead of rifles (or Dogs, Alarm Systems and other stuff that actually works).
If it would be about sports shooting, there would be loads of specialised guns sold for this and you would lock them up at the firing range.
At least be honest, don't use tons of stupid excuses as for why owning a gun is necessary - which still doesn't adress the issue of why you are against a gun registry.
Its plain madness, someone here actually brought up pest control as an argument for owning military grade weapons. Don't you feel ridiculous yourself when you write shit like this?
This is about some weird Cowboy/Machismo culture, nothing else
Look at the parts I put in bold. To me you're looking to debunk why people would "need" a firearm or you're looking to tell them that they have "no reason" to. I want you to realize that "need" or "reasons" have nothing to do with owning a firearm. The needlessness of owning a firearm has nothing to do with why they should be banned or even regulated.
The risk associated with firearms (them falling into the hands of a lunatic) is the correct reason to regulate them in the first place. No one should be caring that they serve "no purpose" (which isn't even true in the first place). That is the gist of my post, does that make sense?
|
On June 15 2016 16:29 Incognoto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2016 03:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 15 2016 02:39 Incognoto wrote:On June 15 2016 01:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Throughout social media, there has been a sudden increase in the number of "shots fired" at Republicans because of the (tragic) shots fired inside the gay club. And rightly so. Republicans need to take responsibility for perpetuating the hatred of LGBT and other minorities, which in turn helps create an environment where they're targeted and killed. No new bills, no new proposals, no new reactions besides "thoughts and prayers lulz". The core principle of prejudice is found in both religious fundamentalism and the modern Republican Party. And the death toll increases every day because of it. Here are some of the pictures (large/ not resized): + Show Spoiler + not that i like any of those people, but to me it's a little cheap to blame republicans for the shooting? they're idiots in many ways but to say they set up the conditions for terrorism is a stretch, imo Republicans are blocking the ability to even do research on gun violence in America, let alone allow us to make any changes. Furthermore, they're continuously trying to label and treat minority groups (such as LGBT) as second-class citizens. When the status quo is a daily mass shooting and discrimination in this country, and one political party refuses to acknowledge it and do anything about it, they're part of the problem. Saying "thoughts and prayers" is the most hollow and offensive thing a politician could say, seeing as how he could actually be trying to do something meaningful in response to these tragedies. OK that makes a lot more sense to me, I hadn't seen it from that angle. I'd be hard-pressed to disagree that the United States political landscape is fucked up in more ways than one.
Agreed; it's very frustrating!
|
On June 15 2016 19:41 Velr wrote:
You have to understand, this topic really makes the head of many europeans spin. On one side you have tragedy after tragedy and act all shocked again and again but still you do nothing but instead clinge to a "right" that was talking about Muskets and a tightly regulated militia.
It makes most Americans' heads spin as well, considering the vast majority of both non-gun owners and gun owners favor some level of standard gun regulation/ gun control and background checks, and most Americans don't even own guns anyway.
It's just that the NRA and the Republican Party spin the conversation into a slippery slope, where Obama or the CDC (or anyone else) who even just wants to have a normal conversation or do actual research must have a secret agenda to want to ban all guns in all forms and burn the Constitution.
|
On June 15 2016 20:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2016 19:41 Velr wrote:
You have to understand, this topic really makes the head of many europeans spin. On one side you have tragedy after tragedy and act all shocked again and again but still you do nothing but instead clinge to a "right" that was talking about Muskets and a tightly regulated militia. It makes most Americans' heads spin as well, considering the vast majority of both non-gun owners and gun owners favor some level of standard gun regulation/ gun control and background checks, and most Americans don't even own guns anyway.
There are all ready background checks and gun regulations. Am I living in the Twilight Zone or do people just intentionally misrepresent facts to suit their political agendas...hmmm...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/KV9naC1.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/JErUgl0.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/oXiNRQX.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/oky8IU4.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ju1l5m1.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/YrhfN9J.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/h1NmnEh.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/olmsFIO.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/qpZtpgs.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/3IM21jC.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/EGecHex.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/VkMzAye.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/gMDq6fJ.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/TxYwf01.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/QDoiKC3.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/7m5W2q9.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/cMuqFcb.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/RHechRM.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/bDez819.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/yf4V0Ab.jpg)
