|
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. |
another shooting in orlando, this time a child was a victim. yay guns.
it only takes someone to open up any social media platform of their choice to see the world's (minus USA and maybeee canada) collective opinion on gun laws in america. say what you want about your culture, history and whatever other argument you can make for keeping your guns, but when the rest of the world are pretty much in agreement that your gun laws are backwards then its time to look in the mirror and see where the fk it all went wrong as a country
|
On June 22 2016 23:33 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2016 22:14 nojok wrote:On June 22 2016 21:35 superstartran wrote:On June 22 2016 21:29 nojok wrote:On June 22 2016 21:13 superstartran wrote:On June 22 2016 18:05 evilfatsh1t wrote:
i never said the government cant be bothered to protect its taxpayers. i was referring to your argument supporting any choice the government makes that doesnt increase regulation in gun laws.
i dont see how i was putting any words in your mouth when your post, and i quote:
" I agree that gun regulation would lower deaths, keep in mind that it wouldn't reduce to them to zero, and also there'd be deaths caused by gun regulation as well, so in reality, you'd be saving quite a bit less less than 1 in 70,000-130,000 non-criminal citizen."
is basically saying that the effort to regulate gun laws further doesnt give a good enough return on the lives it saves, therefore not worth pursuing, and would rather devote that time/money/resources into 'education'.
i may have been the only person to interpret your post this way, and correct me if im wrong, but this is how i see it.
you mention democracy and 'people's government' but you provide a rough statistic saying ~40% would probably object to further regulations. 40% doesnt even look like the majority to me, not to mention that although everyone has the right to their opinion, how much of 40% are actually intelligent enough to provide a coherent argument against the further regulation of guns rather than "oh no dont take my freedoms!".
as for 'primary function', i think you need to look up the dictionary what those words mean.
a vehicle's primary function is to transport an object from a to b
a weapon's primary function is to inflict damage.
guns were made to inflict damage and oppress people. the US didnt develop nukes because they thought their normal missiles werent enough for self defense. they developed them because they wanted every other country to shit their pants and surrender.
guns are weapons, not shields.
you can attack me or refrain from responding or whatever, but im struggling to see how your justifications are linear with the direction humanity should be going in. And this is the exact black and white rhetoric that most gun owners refuse to deal with. There's not even talk of any kind of compromise here, just that one side is right, the other side is wrong. And 2nd Amendment rights extends further than just firearms themselves. Losing your 2nd amendment rights would mean you just lost one of the implied rights that are given to you as a citizen by the U.S. constitution, which would result in a whole slew of potentially bad things that could happen. There's a whole lot more at stake here then just 'right to bear arms.' But do go ahead and educate me about my own country and how it should be ran, when you understand nothing about the society that we have, the culture that is here, nor the history behind the country. Care to elaborate on "the whole slew of potentially bad things that could happen"? It sets a precedent that the government is able to take away the implied rights granted to you as a U.S. citizen by the U.S. Constitution. That's very bad. Right to reasonable amounts of privacy? That's granted by the U.S. constitution as an implied right. Same things such as the right to send your children to private schools, and marital privacy (all protected by the 14th amendment which stretches its definition very broadly and grants many implied rights). By reversing the 2nd amendment, you would open up a huge can of worms. The whole LGBT movement? The entire thing would get reversed or challenged again as it's legal basis is an implied right based on the broad definition of the equal protection clause. Oh yeah, let's not get into something like Roe vs Wade, which again would be challenged again the second you start challenging implied rights granted by the U.S. Constitution. People need to think before they open their big fat mouths about certain things, because they don't understand the possible repercussions that could happen. By opening a legal basis for challenging or removing implied rights granted to you by the U.S. Constitution, you would open Pandora's fucking box. But go ahead and tell me I'm some gun fanatical that doesn't know what the fuck I'm talking about. On June 22 2016 21:16 farvacola wrote:
There are plenty of people who understand and celebrate US history alongside a push for stronger gun control measures, so I would stop hiding behind that facade if I were you. How many are from other countries? Like 0? Because that's pretty evident in this thread. That's a very one sided perspective, you could also say the government give you the right to not worry about guns. You really never considered the possibility of just forbiding guns and nothing else change? That does not seem that crazy. Your argument is that many rights might be abolished which does not seem to be the will of anyone advocating for the end of the right to bear guns. So I agree with you that it would set a precedent, then the question would be "is it worth the risk to set that precedent?" I hope I'll see the 6th French consitution during my life, changing the constitution should not be considered like the omega of freedom. Is it risky to change the constitution? Yes, it is, it solves some problems, brings up some others but I genuinely believe it's the right thing to do. Though I would be super scared to see a new consitution done by Le Pen but I think I'm diverging too far at that point even if it's strongly linked to the matter. Is the French constitution that easy to amend? Like if a far right party got elected, surely it wouldn't be with a majority strong enough to start dragging the constitution through the mud :X
Only 3/5 of each house of the congress, the National Assembly and the Senate, or referendum and obviously the agreement from the President and the government. But reaching 3/5 on both house is quite hard as they're not elected at the same time and the party which is governing always disappoints people so no one ever has such a majority on both house without some alliances with different parties. Twenty-four revisions occured since the birth of the 5th Republic in 1958, nothing crazy, lots of international treaties, new civil rights, end of death penalty, some former colonies taking their independance. There are always some debates about a new constitution during presidential election but it never actually happens.
|
On June 22 2016 21:50 farvacola wrote:Please note that superstartran is clearly not a lawyer and his "legal" argument is nothing more than a slippery slope draped in threatening language. "Implied Rights" are not a mode of constitutional attack and would not be a basis for overturning or reconsidering other rights should the 2nd amendment be interpreted differently in the future. The entire notion of unenumerated rights is still very controversial in and of itself, and it's worth mentioning that most of the strongest Supreme Court supporters of the 2nd amendment are also the biggest critics of finding rights in the penumbras of the Constitution. For someone who likes to berate foreigners as to their ignorance of US law, superstartran is pretty good at showcasing his own. I'd stick to talking about guns themselves 
It's not a slippery slope at all.
Changing the interpretation of the 2nd amendment opens doors to a whole slew of different things that you don't want to open the door to. I'm not a lawyer you're right; but to believe that changing the interpretation of the 2nd amendment from a loose one to a more strict one would have no legal impact is asinine itself. You open the door for arguments for whether or not the 14th amendment and the Equal Protection Clause should be interpreted differently. If the 2nd Amendment can be reinterpreted, why not everything else? That's not a slippery slope at all. If somehow the 2nd Amendment does get reinterpreted to something different (and it is a loose interpretation of the 2nd amendment, no one is going to dispute that), how come nothing else can be challenged? Why? Because liberals say so?
Good job though at the back handed insult without actually substantiating your claims other than 'I'm an internet keyboard warrior and you're an idiot.'
|
That is the slippery slope argument. That doing something will cause a chain reaction based solely on the fact that the first thing was done. No proof is ever provided that the chain reaction will take place from "opening the door". Simply doing it will cause the undesirable effect, so we can't do it.
Text book Slippery Slope.
|
On June 23 2016 06:00 Plansix wrote:
That is the slippery slope argument. That doing something will cause a chain reaction based solely on the fact that the first thing was done. No proof is ever provided that the chain reaction will take place from "opening the door". Simply doing it will cause the undesirable effect, so we can't do it.
Text book Slippery Slope.
There's an actual legal basis for something like the 14th amendment and the equal protection clause to be challenged if you do challenge the idea of loose interpretation/unenumerated rights of the people. Slippery slope is based on the idea of a small first step leads to a much bigger usually negative consequence. The idea that you can somehow challenge one unenumerated right, overturn it, and then leave the rest alone is silly. Challenging and defeating a loose interpretation of the constitution is not a small step at all.
|
Unrestricted access to guns is not an unenumerated right. The amendment you are referencing has language in it that say it the weapons must be regulated. There is no argument that the goverment isn't within its power to limit access to fire arms as long as they are not attempt to disarm everyone.
As stated above, the concept of unenumerated rights is not really a sound legal argument.
|
On June 23 2016 06:08 Plansix wrote:
Unrestricted access to guns is not an unenumerated right. The amendment you are referencing has language in it that say it the weapons must be regulated. There is no argument that the goverment isn't within its power to limit access to fire arms as long as they are not attempt to disarm everyone.
As stated above, the concept of unenumerated rights is not really a sound legal argument.
Um what?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
The only way the Supreme Court even reached that decision was because they went above and beyond the 2nd Amendment's actual literal text and stated that the word militia was used in context, however they interpreted the 2nd amendment as the idea that individuals have the right to bear arms. And by golly, even as a firearm owner and supporter of legal usage of firearms, even I admit that was a real stretch for the supreme court to do so.
Unenumerated doesn't mean unrestricted. The right to privacy is an unenumerated right, however it differs from person to person. Obviously a person that is a celebrity has far different rights to privacy then your average every day person. Unenumerated merely means that it's not explicitly stated in the text, which obviously in regards to the 2nd amendment, it's not explicitly stated that individuals are allowed to have firearms.
Plus, if you're saying unenumerated rights are not a really sound legal argument, please tell that to Roe vs Wade and pretty much every major civil rights landmark decision for the past 50 years or so. Because the vast majority of them have heavily relied on an extremely loose interpretation of the equal protection clause.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause
And before constitutional armchair lawyers come on here and say I have no idea what I'm talking about and I'm just merely making shit up, it's been talked about before regarding the connection between the 2nd Amendment and the 14th Amendment, both which rely heavily on a very loose interpretation of the text of both amendments, despite the fact that they are heavily used by opposite parties for different reasons.
http://www.fed-soc.org/aboutus/DownloadLibrary?id=3667
http://www.azcdl.org/Halbrook_TheJurisprudenceoTheSecondandFourteenthAmdts.pdf
http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1836&context=fss_papers
|
Very little of what you posted has to do with slippery slope arguments or "implied rights". Loose interpretation of amendments are not implied right. It is like you are taking a strict interpretation approach to the constitution and then saying because other judges have taking a loss interpretation, it creates new, implied rights.
|
On June 23 2016 06:30 Plansix wrote:
Very little of what you posted has to do with slippery slope arguments or "implied rights". Loose interpretation of amendments are not implied right. It is like you are taking a strict interpretation approach to the constitution and then saying because other judges have taking a loss interpretation, it creates new, implied rights.
Loose interpretations end up in the creation of implied rights. What in the fuck? Unenumerated literally means rights that are guaranteed to you but are not explicitly stated in the constitution. Nowhere in the 2nd Amendment does it say you specifically as an individual have the right to carry a firearm for self-defense. That came from a very loose interpretation of the constitutional text. That is the textbook definition of an unenumerated or implied right guaranteed to you.
|
On June 23 2016 06:08 Plansix wrote:
The amendment you are referencing has language in it that say it the weapons must be regulated.
Come on man, you arent even trying.
|
Northern Ireland22207 Posts
TIL regulated militia = regulted guns lol
|
On June 22 2016 03:01 Leporello wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 21 2016 16:48 Incognoto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2016 15:04 Leporello wrote:![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/hnA8X8X.jpg) This was in my news feed, these stories, back to back. Proliferating more and more deadlier and deadlier weapons is a stupid fucking idea. End of story. We have more guns than people in this country. What is more likely? That a gun will be used to save someone's life, or that it will end up shooting somebody that wasn't a threat to the shooter? The answer is obvious, proven, and always has been. Guns kill people. You want to save yourself from getting shot: try a bulletproof vest, and try to stop guns from being put into the hands of everyone who wants one. Giving everyone a gun is the worst way to prevent yourself from being shot. It is not to say that guns should be eradicated. I want certain police to have guns, for example. But I do not want people to own guns. Everyday, emotional, self-certain, self-righteous people should not own a gun, because it only takes one instance in a lifetime for a good person to commit murder. Like myself, for example. And you. Neither of us should have a gun. No one who isn't actively required to respond to actual threats, should own or possess a gun. No guns, no militias, no "necessary security" from people who are more likely to shoot their neighbor than actually protect the Free State. Revoke the ridiculously archaic, nonsense 2nd Amendment. Everything about it has faded into obscurity. Even the part people DO like about it: "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed." Ummm... where's the lines here? It's "infringement" to ban automatic weapons, but we're all okay with banning high-explosives? Why? Why is an automatic rifle "necessary to the security of a Free State" but high-explosives aren't? Of course, this all hinges on the Amendment's actual subject: militias. Militias, being necessary to the security of a free State. Well, there's a hell of a presumption. I see a lot of "states", i.e. countries, in the world. A lot of them enjoy, arguably, more freedoms than ever America is comfortable with. They don't need guns. They don't have guns. The Netherlands will let you buy drugs and a prostitute before it lets a person buy a gun. But I think they still have their freedom over there. I don't think modern Europe is staving off their past Monarchs by the threat of militiamen. I think they just realized that people can govern themselves and will demand it. That demand is simply all it takes. If anything, guns are a threat to self-governance. How is it that America's self-governance is going to be saved by a person with a gun? We're the country that DOES have militias, and the last time I heard from one of these militias in the news, they were taking over public land, aiming guns at public officials working for public institutions that were created by a government that the people voted for. It is all such nonsense. I am tired of all the weakness on this issue. Set the precedent for the future. Ban guns. Make every gun owner account for every gun they own. Arrest anyone who has a gun that isn't accounted for. No more buying or selling. Tell gun manufacturers to sell to Somalia or find better jobs. The tragedy isn't mass-shootings. It isn't Orlando. It's the fact that more people are shot all over this country everyday than were shot in that Orlando nightclub. It's neighbors settling domestic disputes between angry couples, who end up getting shot by "responsible gun owners" who simply lost their mind for a moment, as happens to everyone. We are distributing more and more deadlier guns, and who in their right mind can continue to say it's making us safer? There is so much to be disagreed with your post, I wonder if you're just trying to bait people into reacting negatively. First and foremost, Orlando and mass shootings are the tragedy. Secondly, gun violence in the USA isn't exactly bright but it's hardly as bad as you make it out to be either, there are many other issues which take many more lives in the USA which you ignore, lest it devalue your rhetoric. Thirdly, your own views are your own; don't assume the entire world agrees with you. Tyranny of the majority is a shitty thing and the norm right now is to step away from that (LBGT rights show this), not go in that direction. Anyway your entire post is full to the brim with rhetoric and slipperly slopes. Not very compelling at all. Oh dear, I posted rhetoric and opinion, and stated clearly why I think guns should be outlawed. Of which you don't have responses to.  Personally, I thought it was a good post I made. The 2nd Amendment is archaic bullshit and everyone, including you, knows it. Except you somehow say that LBGT rights is a display of the "tyranny of the majority". [vomit] This is the only real argument in your post that I can see, and it seems kind of crazy. And, somehow it's supposed to tie favorably into proliferating hundreds of millions of guns across the country? Somehow it vindicates the need for militias? I don't know. Well, I guess you make the argument that there are other things that kill more Americans. Like, I don't know, heart disease? You don't give an example, but it doesn't matter. "Heart disease kills more Americans than guns, therefore, guns are great and the 2nd Amendment is fine," is a terrible argument. Guns are not fine. I'll repeat: guns kill more innocent people everyday in America than the amount that died in the Orlando nightclub. The Orlando nightclub is a tragedy, sure. But to say it is the tragedy is wrong. The tragedy is rampant, widespread violence being proliferated across the country, everyday, excused due to an archaic nonsensical sentence that uses "militias" as it's actual subject, written over 200 years ago. You don't defend the 2nd Amendment. Because you can't. Read as a whole, it is blatantly nonsense. Just as the logic, which you also refuse to address, that more guns make us safer, is also blatantly nonsense. Once again, forgive me for daring to have an opinion on this blatant nonsense, displayed in the thread for which such opinions was created.  Secondly, gun violence in the USA isn't exactly bright but it's hardly as bad as you make it out to be either, there are many other issues which take many more lives in the USA which you ignore, lest it devalue your rhetoric. How bad am I "making it out to be"? And I'm "ignoring" what? I'm not supposed to talk about gun-violence without bringing up every other natural cause of death that kills people? "Lest it devalue my rhetoric"? What? What a fucking pathetic attempt to dismiss something. You obviously have never lost anyone in your life who was young due to gun-violence. "It's tragic that this young person died from violent gunshot wounds, but you know, in 30 years, he would've likely died to heart disease." Nauseating logic. It isn't just bad, it nauseates. I was hoping for a response that would actually argue the merits of the 2nd Amendment, and the merits of gun-proliferation among the general public. Kind of sad that people REFUSE to give these arguments. They just want to dismiss the discussion altogether. "Oh, you're trying to politicize this tragedy, how dare you?" "Oh, you're just being argumentative." These are the modern-day arguments favoring the 2nd Amendment. It's very pathetic. Your attempts at dismissal in lieu of arguing the merits of your beliefs strongly suggests you're insecure about your beliefs. Not that I blame you, entirely, because, really, no one can read the 2nd Amendment and honestly say that it makes sense in today's world. No one can look at gun-violence in America and honestly say that gun-proliferation has been a good thing. No one can honestly say that we're "freer" than other civilized countries due to gun-proliferating. Not in any real, earnest, reciprocated exchange, will anyone even dare to make these arguments. We're supposed to just live and die with them instead. Well, I'm completely done with that. It's way past time we had more outrage at weapon-manufacturers and the crud-propaganda that supports them. Whether you like it or not, guns are going to become an even bigger problem. Assault rifles today will pale in comparison to the handguns of the future. We need to draw lines, set rules and precedents, despite the bullshit from the 2nd Amendment "advocates". The best solution would be to simply ban guns, like other good civilized countries figured out a long, long time ago.
OK, so I skimmed this post. I'm not going to even bother answering it.
This guy puts words in my mouth, (purposely?) misunderstands what I say and says things which are absolutely groundless (no evidence, no studies, no statistics, no real argumentation). This guy is 100% rhetoric and I would like to take thank all the other posters in this thread who have actually legitimately though about this problem.
I just want to set one thing straight: LGBT not having rights is "tyranny of the majority" and the trend of them having equal rights to others is the right trend. Where a majority doesn't oppress a minority.
Edit:
lol. i hate how so many people keep coming back to this
how do you guys even define freedom? there is practically nothing in this world that isnt regulated or governed somehow by some entity. there is no such thing as freedom. literally everything given to any single person on the planet aside from some random place in africa is a privilege because our governments allowed it to be. for now your governments have allowed guns to be as easily accessible and loosely regulated as it is, and the abuse of this PRIVILEGE is leading to deaths.
get your heads out of your asses; you dont own guns because you are 'free'.
Freedom is defined as "doing whatever you want without impeding on the rights of others". Freedom is not defined as "do whatever you want".
This nuance is something which escapes many anti-gun folk, unfortunately. The biggest reason I am pro-gun is that I do not believe that responsible, trustworthy gun owners should be forced to give up their interests (whether as a hobby or for self defence, etc.) because a minority abuse firearms.
Most firearm related deaths are due to suicide, then it's drug gangs. The amount of death due to firearms pales compared to many other causes, so let's not monger fear disproportionately. Yes, firearms should be better regulated. No, they should not be banned entirely.
Edit: Furthermore, talking about the 2nd Amendment is a moot point. Firearms are legal in many European countries where the 2nd Amendment does not exist. I never argue based on the 2nd Amendment, to me it's an obsolete piece of legislation.
|
On June 23 2016 18:38 Incognoto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2016 03:01 Leporello wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 21 2016 16:48 Incognoto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2016 15:04 Leporello wrote:This was in my news feed, these stories, back to back. Proliferating more and more deadlier and deadlier weapons is a stupid fucking idea. End of story. We have more guns than people in this country. What is more likely? That a gun will be used to save someone's life, or that it will end up shooting somebody that wasn't a threat to the shooter? The answer is obvious, proven, and always has been. Guns kill people. You want to save yourself from getting shot: try a bulletproof vest, and try to stop guns from being put into the hands of everyone who wants one. Giving everyone a gun is the worst way to prevent yourself from being shot. It is not to say that guns should be eradicated. I want certain police to have guns, for example. But I do not want people to own guns. Everyday, emotional, self-certain, self-righteous people should not own a gun, because it only takes one instance in a lifetime for a good person to commit murder. Like myself, for example. And you. Neither of us should have a gun. No one who isn't actively required to respond to actual threats, should own or possess a gun. No guns, no militias, no "necessary security" from people who are more likely to shoot their neighbor than actually protect the Free State. Revoke the ridiculously archaic, nonsense 2nd Amendment. Everything about it has faded into obscurity. Even the part people DO like about it: "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed." Ummm... where's the lines here? It's "infringement" to ban automatic weapons, but we're all okay with banning high-explosives? Why? Why is an automatic rifle "necessary to the security of a Free State" but high-explosives aren't? Of course, this all hinges on the Amendment's actual subject: militias. Militias, being necessary to the security of a free State. Well, there's a hell of a presumption. I see a lot of "states", i.e. countries, in the world. A lot of them enjoy, arguably, more freedoms than ever America is comfortable with. They don't need guns. They don't have guns. The Netherlands will let you buy drugs and a prostitute before it lets a person buy a gun. But I think they still have their freedom over there. I don't think modern Europe is staving off their past Monarchs by the threat of militiamen. I think they just realized that people can govern themselves and will demand it. That demand is simply all it takes. If anything, guns are a threat to self-governance. How is it that America's self-governance is going to be saved by a person with a gun? We're the country that DOES have militias, and the last time I heard from one of these militias in the news, they were taking over public land, aiming guns at public officials working for public institutions that were created by a government that the people voted for. It is all such nonsense. I am tired of all the weakness on this issue. Set the precedent for the future. Ban guns. Make every gun owner account for every gun they own. Arrest anyone who has a gun that isn't accounted for. No more buying or selling. Tell gun manufacturers to sell to Somalia or find better jobs. The tragedy isn't mass-shootings. It isn't Orlando. It's the fact that more people are shot all over this country everyday than were shot in that Orlando nightclub. It's neighbors settling domestic disputes between angry couples, who end up getting shot by "responsible gun owners" who simply lost their mind for a moment, as happens to everyone. We are distributing more and more deadlier guns, and who in their right mind can continue to say it's making us safer? There is so much to be disagreed with your post, I wonder if you're just trying to bait people into reacting negatively. First and foremost, Orlando and mass shootings are the tragedy. Secondly, gun violence in the USA isn't exactly bright but it's hardly as bad as you make it out to be either, there are many other issues which take many more lives in the USA which you ignore, lest it devalue your rhetoric. Thirdly, your own views are your own; don't assume the entire world agrees with you. Tyranny of the majority is a shitty thing and the norm right now is to step away from that (LBGT rights show this), not go in that direction. Anyway your entire post is full to the brim with rhetoric and slipperly slopes. Not very compelling at all. Oh dear, I posted rhetoric and opinion, and stated clearly why I think guns should be outlawed. Of which you don't have responses to. Personally, I thought it was a good post I made. The 2nd Amendment is archaic bullshit and everyone, including you, knows it. Except you somehow say that LBGT rights is a display of the "tyranny of the majority". [vomit] This is the only real argument in your post that I can see, and it seems kind of crazy. And, somehow it's supposed to tie favorably into proliferating hundreds of millions of guns across the country? Somehow it vindicates the need for militias? I don't know. Well, I guess you make the argument that there are other things that kill more Americans. Like, I don't know, heart disease? You don't give an example, but it doesn't matter. "Heart disease kills more Americans than guns, therefore, guns are great and the 2nd Amendment is fine," is a terrible argument. Guns are not fine. I'll repeat: guns kill more innocent people everyday in America than the amount that died in the Orlando nightclub. The Orlando nightclub is a tragedy, sure. But to say it is the tragedy is wrong. The tragedy is rampant, widespread violence being proliferated across the country, everyday, excused due to an archaic nonsensical sentence that uses "militias" as it's actual subject, written over 200 years ago. You don't defend the 2nd Amendment. Because you can't. Read as a whole, it is blatantly nonsense. Just as the logic, which you also refuse to address, that more guns make us safer, is also blatantly nonsense. Once again, forgive me for daring to have an opinion on this blatant nonsense, displayed in the thread for which such opinions was created. Secondly, gun violence in the USA isn't exactly bright but it's hardly as bad as you make it out to be either, there are many other issues which take many more lives in the USA which you ignore, lest it devalue your rhetoric. How bad am I "making it out to be"? And I'm "ignoring" what? I'm not supposed to talk about gun-violence without bringing up every other natural cause of death that kills people? "Lest it devalue my rhetoric"? What? What a fucking pathetic attempt to dismiss something. You obviously have never lost anyone in your life who was young due to gun-violence. "It's tragic that this young person died from violent gunshot wounds, but you know, in 30 years, he would've likely died to heart disease." Nauseating logic. It isn't just bad, it nauseates. I was hoping for a response that would actually argue the merits of the 2nd Amendment, and the merits of gun-proliferation among the general public. Kind of sad that people REFUSE to give these arguments. They just want to dismiss the discussion altogether. "Oh, you're trying to politicize this tragedy, how dare you?" "Oh, you're just being argumentative." These are the modern-day arguments favoring the 2nd Amendment. It's very pathetic. Your attempts at dismissal in lieu of arguing the merits of your beliefs strongly suggests you're insecure about your beliefs. Not that I blame you, entirely, because, really, no one can read the 2nd Amendment and honestly say that it makes sense in today's world. No one can look at gun-violence in America and honestly say that gun-proliferation has been a good thing. No one can honestly say that we're "freer" than other civilized countries due to gun-proliferating. Not in any real, earnest, reciprocated exchange, will anyone even dare to make these arguments. We're supposed to just live and die with them instead. Well, I'm completely done with that. It's way past time we had more outrage at weapon-manufacturers and the crud-propaganda that supports them. Whether you like it or not, guns are going to become an even bigger problem. Assault rifles today will pale in comparison to the handguns of the future. We need to draw lines, set rules and precedents, despite the bullshit from the 2nd Amendment "advocates". The best solution would be to simply ban guns, like other good civilized countries figured out a long, long time ago. OK, so I skimmed this post. I'm not going to even bother answering it. This guy puts words in my mouth, (purposely?) misunderstands what I say and says things which are absolutely groundless (no evidence, no studies, no statistics, no real argumentation). This guy is 100% rhetoric and I would like to take thank all the other posters in this thread who have actually legitimately though about this problem. I just want to set one thing straight: LGBT not having rights is "tyranny of the majority" and the trend of them having equal rights to others is the right trend. Where a majority doesn't oppress a minority. Edit: Show nested quote +lol. i hate how so many people keep coming back to this
how do you guys even define freedom? there is practically nothing in this world that isnt regulated or governed somehow by some entity. there is no such thing as freedom. literally everything given to any single person on the planet aside from some random place in africa is a privilege because our governments allowed it to be. for now your governments have allowed guns to be as easily accessible and loosely regulated as it is, and the abuse of this PRIVILEGE is leading to deaths.
get your heads out of your asses; you dont own guns because you are 'free'. Freedom is defined as "doing whatever you want without impeding on the rights of others". Freedom is not defined as "do whatever you want". This nuance is something which escapes many anti-gun folk, unfortunately. The biggest reason I am pro-gun is that I do not believe that responsible, trustworthy gun owners should be forced to give up their interests (whether as a hobby or for self defence, etc.) because a minority abuse firearms. Most firearm related deaths are due to suicide, then it's drug gangs. The amount of death due to firearms pales compared to many other causes, so let's not monger fear disproportionately. Yes, firearms should be better regulated. No, they should not be banned entirely. Edit: Furthermore, talking about the 2nd Amendment is a moot point. Firearms are legal in many European countries where the 2nd Amendment does not exist. I never argue based on the 2nd Amendment, to me it's an obsolete piece of legislation.
Also a disproportionate amount of firearm homicides are committed by African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans. 3 groups that are commonly associated poverty (particularly Native Americans and African Americans, less so with Hispanics). If you look at firearm homicide rates among Asian Americans and Caucasians, you'll find that the percentages are very similar to our European and Asian counterparts such as Australia, Great Britain, France, Japan, the Netherlands, etc.
So there's obviously a whole lot more going on then just ease of access to firearms. And yet here we are with a bunch of people just saying 'ban guns.' Like that will do anything to reduce the amount of violent crimes among some of our poorest ethnic groups within our country.
|
On June 24 2016 02:57 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2016 18:38 Incognoto wrote:On June 22 2016 03:01 Leporello wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 21 2016 16:48 Incognoto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2016 15:04 Leporello wrote:This was in my news feed, these stories, back to back. Proliferating more and more deadlier and deadlier weapons is a stupid fucking idea. End of story. We have more guns than people in this country. What is more likely? That a gun will be used to save someone's life, or that it will end up shooting somebody that wasn't a threat to the shooter? The answer is obvious, proven, and always has been. Guns kill people. You want to save yourself from getting shot: try a bulletproof vest, and try to stop guns from being put into the hands of everyone who wants one. Giving everyone a gun is the worst way to prevent yourself from being shot. It is not to say that guns should be eradicated. I want certain police to have guns, for example. But I do not want people to own guns. Everyday, emotional, self-certain, self-righteous people should not own a gun, because it only takes one instance in a lifetime for a good person to commit murder. Like myself, for example. And you. Neither of us should have a gun. No one who isn't actively required to respond to actual threats, should own or possess a gun. No guns, no militias, no "necessary security" from people who are more likely to shoot their neighbor than actually protect the Free State. Revoke the ridiculously archaic, nonsense 2nd Amendment. Everything about it has faded into obscurity. Even the part people DO like about it: "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed." Ummm... where's the lines here? It's "infringement" to ban automatic weapons, but we're all okay with banning high-explosives? Why? Why is an automatic rifle "necessary to the security of a Free State" but high-explosives aren't? Of course, this all hinges on the Amendment's actual subject: militias. Militias, being necessary to the security of a free State. Well, there's a hell of a presumption. I see a lot of "states", i.e. countries, in the world. A lot of them enjoy, arguably, more freedoms than ever America is comfortable with. They don't need guns. They don't have guns. The Netherlands will let you buy drugs and a prostitute before it lets a person buy a gun. But I think they still have their freedom over there. I don't think modern Europe is staving off their past Monarchs by the threat of militiamen. I think they just realized that people can govern themselves and will demand it. That demand is simply all it takes. If anything, guns are a threat to self-governance. How is it that America's self-governance is going to be saved by a person with a gun? We're the country that DOES have militias, and the last time I heard from one of these militias in the news, they were taking over public land, aiming guns at public officials working for public institutions that were created by a government that the people voted for. It is all such nonsense. I am tired of all the weakness on this issue. Set the precedent for the future. Ban guns. Make every gun owner account for every gun they own. Arrest anyone who has a gun that isn't accounted for. No more buying or selling. Tell gun manufacturers to sell to Somalia or find better jobs. The tragedy isn't mass-shootings. It isn't Orlando. It's the fact that more people are shot all over this country everyday than were shot in that Orlando nightclub. It's neighbors settling domestic disputes between angry couples, who end up getting shot by "responsible gun owners" who simply lost their mind for a moment, as happens to everyone. We are distributing more and more deadlier guns, and who in their right mind can continue to say it's making us safer? There is so much to be disagreed with your post, I wonder if you're just trying to bait people into reacting negatively. First and foremost, Orlando and mass shootings are the tragedy. Secondly, gun violence in the USA isn't exactly bright but it's hardly as bad as you make it out to be either, there are many other issues which take many more lives in the USA which you ignore, lest it devalue your rhetoric. Thirdly, your own views are your own; don't assume the entire world agrees with you. Tyranny of the majority is a shitty thing and the norm right now is to step away from that (LBGT rights show this), not go in that direction. Anyway your entire post is full to the brim with rhetoric and slipperly slopes. Not very compelling at all. Oh dear, I posted rhetoric and opinion, and stated clearly why I think guns should be outlawed. Of which you don't have responses to. Personally, I thought it was a good post I made. The 2nd Amendment is archaic bullshit and everyone, including you, knows it. Except you somehow say that LBGT rights is a display of the "tyranny of the majority". [vomit] This is the only real argument in your post that I can see, and it seems kind of crazy. And, somehow it's supposed to tie favorably into proliferating hundreds of millions of guns across the country? Somehow it vindicates the need for militias? I don't know. Well, I guess you make the argument that there are other things that kill more Americans. Like, I don't know, heart disease? You don't give an example, but it doesn't matter. "Heart disease kills more Americans than guns, therefore, guns are great and the 2nd Amendment is fine," is a terrible argument. Guns are not fine. I'll repeat: guns kill more innocent people everyday in America than the amount that died in the Orlando nightclub. The Orlando nightclub is a tragedy, sure. But to say it is the tragedy is wrong. The tragedy is rampant, widespread violence being proliferated across the country, everyday, excused due to an archaic nonsensical sentence that uses "militias" as it's actual subject, written over 200 years ago. You don't defend the 2nd Amendment. Because you can't. Read as a whole, it is blatantly nonsense. Just as the logic, which you also refuse to address, that more guns make us safer, is also blatantly nonsense. Once again, forgive me for daring to have an opinion on this blatant nonsense, displayed in the thread for which such opinions was created. Secondly, gun violence in the USA isn't exactly bright but it's hardly as bad as you make it out to be either, there are many other issues which take many more lives in the USA which you ignore, lest it devalue your rhetoric. How bad am I "making it out to be"? And I'm "ignoring" what? I'm not supposed to talk about gun-violence without bringing up every other natural cause of death that kills people? "Lest it devalue my rhetoric"? What? What a fucking pathetic attempt to dismiss something. You obviously have never lost anyone in your life who was young due to gun-violence. "It's tragic that this young person died from violent gunshot wounds, but you know, in 30 years, he would've likely died to heart disease." Nauseating logic. It isn't just bad, it nauseates. I was hoping for a response that would actually argue the merits of the 2nd Amendment, and the merits of gun-proliferation among the general public. Kind of sad that people REFUSE to give these arguments. They just want to dismiss the discussion altogether. "Oh, you're trying to politicize this tragedy, how dare you?" "Oh, you're just being argumentative." These are the modern-day arguments favoring the 2nd Amendment. It's very pathetic. Your attempts at dismissal in lieu of arguing the merits of your beliefs strongly suggests you're insecure about your beliefs. Not that I blame you, entirely, because, really, no one can read the 2nd Amendment and honestly say that it makes sense in today's world. No one can look at gun-violence in America and honestly say that gun-proliferation has been a good thing. No one can honestly say that we're "freer" than other civilized countries due to gun-proliferating. Not in any real, earnest, reciprocated exchange, will anyone even dare to make these arguments. We're supposed to just live and die with them instead. Well, I'm completely done with that. It's way past time we had more outrage at weapon-manufacturers and the crud-propaganda that supports them. Whether you like it or not, guns are going to become an even bigger problem. Assault rifles today will pale in comparison to the handguns of the future. We need to draw lines, set rules and precedents, despite the bullshit from the 2nd Amendment "advocates". The best solution would be to simply ban guns, like other good civilized countries figured out a long, long time ago. OK, so I skimmed this post. I'm not going to even bother answering it. This guy puts words in my mouth, (purposely?) misunderstands what I say and says things which are absolutely groundless (no evidence, no studies, no statistics, no real argumentation). This guy is 100% rhetoric and I would like to take thank all the other posters in this thread who have actually legitimately though about this problem. I just want to set one thing straight: LGBT not having rights is "tyranny of the majority" and the trend of them having equal rights to others is the right trend. Where a majority doesn't oppress a minority. Edit: lol. i hate how so many people keep coming back to this
how do you guys even define freedom? there is practically nothing in this world that isnt regulated or governed somehow by some entity. there is no such thing as freedom. literally everything given to any single person on the planet aside from some random place in africa is a privilege because our governments allowed it to be. for now your governments have allowed guns to be as easily accessible and loosely regulated as it is, and the abuse of this PRIVILEGE is leading to deaths.
get your heads out of your asses; you dont own guns because you are 'free'. Freedom is defined as "doing whatever you want without impeding on the rights of others". Freedom is not defined as "do whatever you want". This nuance is something which escapes many anti-gun folk, unfortunately. The biggest reason I am pro-gun is that I do not believe that responsible, trustworthy gun owners should be forced to give up their interests (whether as a hobby or for self defence, etc.) because a minority abuse firearms. Most firearm related deaths are due to suicide, then it's drug gangs. The amount of death due to firearms pales compared to many other causes, so let's not monger fear disproportionately. Yes, firearms should be better regulated. No, they should not be banned entirely. Edit: Furthermore, talking about the 2nd Amendment is a moot point. Firearms are legal in many European countries where the 2nd Amendment does not exist. I never argue based on the 2nd Amendment, to me it's an obsolete piece of legislation. Also a disproportionate amount of firearm homicides are committed by African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans. 3 groups that are commonly associated poverty (particularly Native Americans and African Americans, less so with Hispanics). If you look at firearm homicide rates among Asian Americans and Caucasians, you'll find that the percentages are very similar to our European and Asian counterparts such as Australia, Great Britain, France, Japan, the Netherlands, etc. So there's obviously a whole lot more going on then just ease of access to firearms. And yet here we are with a bunch of people just saying 'ban guns.' Like that will do anything to reduce the amount of violent crimes among some of our poorest ethnic groups within our country.
its funny how you always manage to say something like "people just saying ban guns is the solution". i think everybody is aware of the different culture and the different circumstances in the united states compared to europe,australia or whatever and im also pretty sure that quite a few people would agree that banning guns alone is not enough.
BUT most people arguing for strict regulations or bans think that its one part of a bigger problem that is relatively easy to solve
|
On June 24 2016 04:25 TRAP[yoo] wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2016 02:57 superstartran wrote:On June 23 2016 18:38 Incognoto wrote:On June 22 2016 03:01 Leporello wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 21 2016 16:48 Incognoto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2016 15:04 Leporello wrote:This was in my news feed, these stories, back to back. Proliferating more and more deadlier and deadlier weapons is a stupid fucking idea. End of story. We have more guns than people in this country. What is more likely? That a gun will be used to save someone's life, or that it will end up shooting somebody that wasn't a threat to the shooter? The answer is obvious, proven, and always has been. Guns kill people. You want to save yourself from getting shot: try a bulletproof vest, and try to stop guns from being put into the hands of everyone who wants one. Giving everyone a gun is the worst way to prevent yourself from being shot. It is not to say that guns should be eradicated. I want certain police to have guns, for example. But I do not want people to own guns. Everyday, emotional, self-certain, self-righteous people should not own a gun, because it only takes one instance in a lifetime for a good person to commit murder. Like myself, for example. And you. Neither of us should have a gun. No one who isn't actively required to respond to actual threats, should own or possess a gun. No guns, no militias, no "necessary security" from people who are more likely to shoot their neighbor than actually protect the Free State. Revoke the ridiculously archaic, nonsense 2nd Amendment. Everything about it has faded into obscurity. Even the part people DO like about it: "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed." Ummm... where's the lines here? It's "infringement" to ban automatic weapons, but we're all okay with banning high-explosives? Why? Why is an automatic rifle "necessary to the security of a Free State" but high-explosives aren't? Of course, this all hinges on the Amendment's actual subject: militias. Militias, being necessary to the security of a free State. Well, there's a hell of a presumption. I see a lot of "states", i.e. countries, in the world. A lot of them enjoy, arguably, more freedoms than ever America is comfortable with. They don't need guns. They don't have guns. The Netherlands will let you buy drugs and a prostitute before it lets a person buy a gun. But I think they still have their freedom over there. I don't think modern Europe is staving off their past Monarchs by the threat of militiamen. I think they just realized that people can govern themselves and will demand it. That demand is simply all it takes. If anything, guns are a threat to self-governance. How is it that America's self-governance is going to be saved by a person with a gun? We're the country that DOES have militias, and the last time I heard from one of these militias in the news, they were taking over public land, aiming guns at public officials working for public institutions that were created by a government that the people voted for. It is all such nonsense. I am tired of all the weakness on this issue. Set the precedent for the future. Ban guns. Make every gun owner account for every gun they own. Arrest anyone who has a gun that isn't accounted for. No more buying or selling. Tell gun manufacturers to sell to Somalia or find better jobs. The tragedy isn't mass-shootings. It isn't Orlando. It's the fact that more people are shot all over this country everyday than were shot in that Orlando nightclub. It's neighbors settling domestic disputes between angry couples, who end up getting shot by "responsible gun owners" who simply lost their mind for a moment, as happens to everyone. We are distributing more and more deadlier guns, and who in their right mind can continue to say it's making us safer? There is so much to be disagreed with your post, I wonder if you're just trying to bait people into reacting negatively. First and foremost, Orlando and mass shootings are the tragedy. Secondly, gun violence in the USA isn't exactly bright but it's hardly as bad as you make it out to be either, there are many other issues which take many more lives in the USA which you ignore, lest it devalue your rhetoric. Thirdly, your own views are your own; don't assume the entire world agrees with you. Tyranny of the majority is a shitty thing and the norm right now is to step away from that (LBGT rights show this), not go in that direction. Anyway your entire post is full to the brim with rhetoric and slipperly slopes. Not very compelling at all. Oh dear, I posted rhetoric and opinion, and stated clearly why I think guns should be outlawed. Of which you don't have responses to. Personally, I thought it was a good post I made. The 2nd Amendment is archaic bullshit and everyone, including you, knows it. Except you somehow say that LBGT rights is a display of the "tyranny of the majority". [vomit] This is the only real argument in your post that I can see, and it seems kind of crazy. And, somehow it's supposed to tie favorably into proliferating hundreds of millions of guns across the country? Somehow it vindicates the need for militias? I don't know. Well, I guess you make the argument that there are other things that kill more Americans. Like, I don't know, heart disease? You don't give an example, but it doesn't matter. "Heart disease kills more Americans than guns, therefore, guns are great and the 2nd Amendment is fine," is a terrible argument. Guns are not fine. I'll repeat: guns kill more innocent people everyday in America than the amount that died in the Orlando nightclub. The Orlando nightclub is a tragedy, sure. But to say it is the tragedy is wrong. The tragedy is rampant, widespread violence being proliferated across the country, everyday, excused due to an archaic nonsensical sentence that uses "militias" as it's actual subject, written over 200 years ago. You don't defend the 2nd Amendment. Because you can't. Read as a whole, it is blatantly nonsense. Just as the logic, which you also refuse to address, that more guns make us safer, is also blatantly nonsense. Once again, forgive me for daring to have an opinion on this blatant nonsense, displayed in the thread for which such opinions was created. Secondly, gun violence in the USA isn't exactly bright but it's hardly as bad as you make it out to be either, there are many other issues which take many more lives in the USA which you ignore, lest it devalue your rhetoric. How bad am I "making it out to be"? And I'm "ignoring" what? I'm not supposed to talk about gun-violence without bringing up every other natural cause of death that kills people? "Lest it devalue my rhetoric"? What? What a fucking pathetic attempt to dismiss something. You obviously have never lost anyone in your life who was young due to gun-violence. "It's tragic that this young person died from violent gunshot wounds, but you know, in 30 years, he would've likely died to heart disease." Nauseating logic. It isn't just bad, it nauseates. I was hoping for a response that would actually argue the merits of the 2nd Amendment, and the merits of gun-proliferation among the general public. Kind of sad that people REFUSE to give these arguments. They just want to dismiss the discussion altogether. "Oh, you're trying to politicize this tragedy, how dare you?" "Oh, you're just being argumentative." These are the modern-day arguments favoring the 2nd Amendment. It's very pathetic. Your attempts at dismissal in lieu of arguing the merits of your beliefs strongly suggests you're insecure about your beliefs. Not that I blame you, entirely, because, really, no one can read the 2nd Amendment and honestly say that it makes sense in today's world. No one can look at gun-violence in America and honestly say that gun-proliferation has been a good thing. No one can honestly say that we're "freer" than other civilized countries due to gun-proliferating. Not in any real, earnest, reciprocated exchange, will anyone even dare to make these arguments. We're supposed to just live and die with them instead. Well, I'm completely done with that. It's way past time we had more outrage at weapon-manufacturers and the crud-propaganda that supports them. Whether you like it or not, guns are going to become an even bigger problem. Assault rifles today will pale in comparison to the handguns of the future. We need to draw lines, set rules and precedents, despite the bullshit from the 2nd Amendment "advocates". The best solution would be to simply ban guns, like other good civilized countries figured out a long, long time ago. OK, so I skimmed this post. I'm not going to even bother answering it. This guy puts words in my mouth, (purposely?) misunderstands what I say and says things which are absolutely groundless (no evidence, no studies, no statistics, no real argumentation). This guy is 100% rhetoric and I would like to take thank all the other posters in this thread who have actually legitimately though about this problem. I just want to set one thing straight: LGBT not having rights is "tyranny of the majority" and the trend of them having equal rights to others is the right trend. Where a majority doesn't oppress a minority. Edit: lol. i hate how so many people keep coming back to this
how do you guys even define freedom? there is practically nothing in this world that isnt regulated or governed somehow by some entity. there is no such thing as freedom. literally everything given to any single person on the planet aside from some random place in africa is a privilege because our governments allowed it to be. for now your governments have allowed guns to be as easily accessible and loosely regulated as it is, and the abuse of this PRIVILEGE is leading to deaths.
get your heads out of your asses; you dont own guns because you are 'free'. Freedom is defined as "doing whatever you want without impeding on the rights of others". Freedom is not defined as "do whatever you want". This nuance is something which escapes many anti-gun folk, unfortunately. The biggest reason I am pro-gun is that I do not believe that responsible, trustworthy gun owners should be forced to give up their interests (whether as a hobby or for self defence, etc.) because a minority abuse firearms. Most firearm related deaths are due to suicide, then it's drug gangs. The amount of death due to firearms pales compared to many other causes, so let's not monger fear disproportionately. Yes, firearms should be better regulated. No, they should not be banned entirely. Edit: Furthermore, talking about the 2nd Amendment is a moot point. Firearms are legal in many European countries where the 2nd Amendment does not exist. I never argue based on the 2nd Amendment, to me it's an obsolete piece of legislation. Also a disproportionate amount of firearm homicides are committed by African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans. 3 groups that are commonly associated poverty (particularly Native Americans and African Americans, less so with Hispanics). If you look at firearm homicide rates among Asian Americans and Caucasians, you'll find that the percentages are very similar to our European and Asian counterparts such as Australia, Great Britain, France, Japan, the Netherlands, etc. So there's obviously a whole lot more going on then just ease of access to firearms. And yet here we are with a bunch of people just saying 'ban guns.' Like that will do anything to reduce the amount of violent crimes among some of our poorest ethnic groups within our country. its funny how you always manage to say something like "people just saying ban guns is the solution". i think everybody is aware of the different culture and the different circumstances in the united states compared to europe,australia or whatever and im also pretty sure that quite a few people would agree that banning guns alone is not enough. BUT most people arguing for strict regulations or bans think that its one part of a bigger problem that is relatively easy to solve
No they clearly aren't. As evidenced to the multitude of rhetoric in this thread that merely state opinions about how firearms are the worst evil on earth.
|
Zurich15313 Posts
So, somewhat related, what was apparently a lone lunatic stormed a movie theatre today around here and took hostages. Was shot dead by police after he opened fire - with what turned out to be a prop gun firing blanks. Because being a lone lunatic he could not get a real gun around here.
No one but the attacker killed or injured.
|
On June 24 2016 05:16 zatic wrote:
So, somewhat related, what was apparently a lone lunatic stormed a movie theatre today around here and took hostages. Was shot dead by police after he opened fire - with what turned out to be a prop gun firing blanks. Because being a lone lunatic he could not get a real gun around here.
No one but the attacker killed or injured.
Yea this is what pretty much came to mind when i first heard of this. One of many great examples for the pro gun people to think about.
|
Start focusing on the why, instead of the how. Obsessing over the how does nothing to prevent future crimes from occurring.
|
it can help reduce the number of crimes from occuring. this logic of "we cant eliminate all crime so lets do nothing about it" is fking stupid. might as well absolve all laws and live in an anarchic society because whats the point? criminals will find a way right?
|
On June 24 2016 05:21 Reaps wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2016 05:16 zatic wrote:
So, somewhat related, what was apparently a lone lunatic stormed a movie theatre today around here and took hostages. Was shot dead by police after he opened fire - with what turned out to be a prop gun firing blanks. Because being a lone lunatic he could not get a real gun around here.
No one but the attacker killed or injured. Yea this is what pretty much came to mind when i first heard of this. One of many great examples for the pro gun people to think about.
And there are many examples where guns are used to defend one self from an intruder. I could list a billion examples.
On June 24 2016 07:18 evilfatsh1t wrote:
it can help reduce the number of crimes from occuring. this logic of "we cant eliminate all crime so lets do nothing about it" is fking stupid. might as well absolve all laws and live in an anarchic society because whats the point? criminals will find a way right?
Eliminating poverty and oppression of a singular ethnic group would do more to stop crimes from occurring more than gun control. In fact, most objective studies have shown that there is no correlation between gun control laws and violent crimes.
i.e.
http://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1
But hey, why become educated on a subject when I can just shout at the top of my lungs and call the other side idiots.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
