• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EST 10:19
CET 16:19
KST 00:19
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
TL.net Map Contest #21: Winners11Intel X Team Liquid Seoul event: Showmatches and Meet the Pros10[ASL20] Finals Preview: Arrival13TL.net Map Contest #21: Voting12[ASL20] Ro4 Preview: Descent11
Community News
Weekly Cups (Nov 3-9): Clem Conquers in Canada2SC: Evo Complete - Ranked Ladder OPEN ALPHA8StarCraft, SC2, HotS, WC3, Returning to Blizzcon!45$5,000+ WardiTV 2025 Championship7[BSL21] RO32 Group Stage4
StarCraft 2
General
Mech is the composition that needs teleportation t SC: Evo Complete - Ranked Ladder OPEN ALPHA Weekly Cups (Nov 3-9): Clem Conquers in Canada Craziest Micro Moments Of All Time? RotterdaM "Serral is the GOAT, and it's not close"
Tourneys
Constellation Cup - Main Event - Stellar Fest Tenacious Turtle Tussle Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament $5,000+ WardiTV 2025 Championship Merivale 8 Open - LAN - Stellar Fest
Strategy
Custom Maps
Map Editor closed ?
External Content
Mutation # 499 Chilling Adaptation Mutation # 498 Wheel of Misfortune|Cradle of Death Mutation # 497 Battle Haredened Mutation # 496 Endless Infection
Brood War
General
FlaSh on: Biggest Problem With SnOw's Playstyle BW General Discussion BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ [ASL20] Ask the mapmakers — Drop your questions Where's CardinalAllin/Jukado the mapmaker?
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues [ASL20] Grand Finals [BSL21] RO32 Group A - Saturday 21:00 CET [BSL21] RO32 Group B - Sunday 21:00 CET
Strategy
Current Meta PvZ map balance How to stay on top of macro? Soma's 9 hatch build from ASL Game 2
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Nintendo Switch Thread Should offensive tower rushing be viable in RTS games? Path of Exile Dawn of War IV
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Deck construction bug Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread SPIRED by.ASL Mafia {211640}
Community
General
Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine US Politics Mega-thread Canadian Politics Mega-thread The Games Industry And ATVI
Fan Clubs
White-Ra Fan Club The herO Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
[Manga] One Piece Anime Discussion Thread Movie Discussion! Korean Music Discussion Series you have seen recently...
Sports
2024 - 2026 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion NBA General Discussion MLB/Baseball 2023 TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
SC2 Client Relocalization [Change SC2 Language] Linksys AE2500 USB WIFI keeps disconnecting Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Dyadica Gospel – a Pulp No…
Hildegard
Coffee x Performance in Espo…
TrAiDoS
Saturation point
Uldridge
DnB/metal remix FFO Mick Go…
ImbaTosS
Reality "theory" prov…
perfectspheres
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 1806 users

If you're seeing this topic then another mass shooting hap…

Forum Index > General Forum
Post a Reply
Prev 1 638 639 640 641 642 891 Next
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.
TheDwf
Profile Joined November 2011
France19747 Posts
September 25 2016 15:53 GMT
#12781
On September 25 2016 23:20 Incognoto wrote:
I'm not talking out of my ass either, I've already been to rural areas during hunting season. They're responsible in how they use the guns. The firearms are pointed at the ground, unloaded. Very little risk to other humans, absolutely no malicious intent whatsoever. All armed to the teeth.

Yeah, well, in France the majority of the population would still be pleased if hunting could be forbidden on Sundays (78%), and feels unsafe during the hunting season (61%). Source

And even if people are cautious, mortal hunting accidents do happen (~15-20 deaths per season the last years, including a minority of non-hunters).

Yes the alcohol culture in some of our countries is beyond stupid, and smoking kills far more than firearms in some places, etc. But societies aren't organized rationally, so naturally you can always fairly “arbitrary” choices regarding freedom to do such or such thing. It doesn't really nullify the gun question. (Plus, prohibition was tried for alcohol, and it didn't work.)

You cannot simply summon individual freedom in a vacuum, you have to consider “negative externalities”. Which is why there are campaigns against passive smoking, drunk driving, and a gun question.
Incognoto
Profile Blog Joined May 2010
France10239 Posts
September 25 2016 19:13 GMT
#12782
On September 25 2016 23:54 Nebuchad wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 25 2016 23:20 Incognoto wrote:
On September 25 2016 18:13 Nebuchad wrote:
On September 25 2016 16:55 Incognoto wrote:
On September 25 2016 12:31 Nebuchad wrote:
On September 25 2016 12:14 micronesia wrote:
On September 25 2016 12:02 Sermokala wrote:
Thats not as good of an argument as it sounds though. If they didn't have access to guns those deaths wouldn't happen and that is the goal of gun control people.

Granted the big problem with gun control people is that they almost always argue for policies that won't help the situation in either case but thats the issue we've been aruging about for 600 pages or so.

you could use it for every death. If people didn't have access to cars, nobody would die in car accidents.


All right, but go further than that. It is true that people wouldn't die in car accidents if they weren't using cars. However, as a society, we have acknowledged that the benefits of using cars largely outweigh the inconvenients of using them. Which is why we accept that number. Sure, we try and limit it as much as we can, but we aren't ready to stop using cars entirely, which is the only way to eliminate this number entirely. It might sound harsh to say it like that, but the problem just isn't important enough.

A conversation on gun control will happen between someone who thinks that the same standard of utility is met when it comes to gun possession or gun proliferation (depending on whether the argument is about gun control or gun bans), and someone who doesn't. I think this is a discussion worthy of being had.

As a sidenote, it's why it always annoys me when people oppose the death penalty "only because you can kill innocents", or use innocents being killed as the center of their argument against it. That's not in itself an argument against the death penalty.


No this is an absolutely silly and hypocritical argument.

Let's change "cars" to alcohol or tobacco. Where's your argument now? Where is the "benefit to society" from those? There's no utility to alcohol yet the death toll is pretty much x10 that of firearms?

Let's take it a step further. Whether or not firearms have actual "uses" is completely and entirely irrelevant to the argument. We live in FREE societies, not Soviet Russia or bad countries like the UK or Australia which has a bad history of impeding on individual rights. If someone wants to own and use a firearm, he is entitled to do that, so long as he is responsible in how he uses it.


Alcohol allows you to get drunk, which I'm told is a state people enjoy being in given that they have consistently gotten in that state for thousands of years. Society recognizes that certain things are pleasurable, and as such allows for them.

Freedom has always had limits and will always have limits. Where that limit is set is a matter of debate and doesn't in any way mean that we aren't a free society.


Why precisely are you allowed to enjoy yourself being drunk and I am not allowed to enjoy my sport shooting or hunting? Why is YOUR pleasure somehow better than mine?


I don't drink much. This isn't about your pleasure or mine, this is about discussions that deserve to be had. When we discuss gun control or gun bans, the discussion that is being had is "Are guns beneficial enough to society to justify the harm that they are causing." We can have the same discussion about cars, and we will find that they are, which is why what micronesia pointed out isn't exactly relevant to the gun situation. We can have the same discussion about alcohol, and I would assume that we find that it is beneficial as well. Perhaps you disagree. Perhaps you think that alcohol is a net loss for humanity. If that is the case, what you have here is an argument for limiting alcohol consumption, not an argument for dismissing benefits and losses in other contexts.


No, the discussion is not, and should not, be "are guns beneficial enough to society to justify the harm they're doing". That is fascist thinking, it's government micromanagement, it's abhorrent to look at any problem that way.

The question is not "why should we allow X", the question is "why shouldn't we allow X". There is a huge difference in both approaches. The former is fascism and the latter is what we do in normal, free societies. It's quite similar to "innocent until proven guilty". I think that BMX biking, mountain climbing, etc. are dangerous. I wouldn't do those activities. I would never prevent anyone else from doing it if they wish, because they aren't harming me when they do that.

In the same way, someone who drinks alcohol in moderation and doesn't drink & drive is perfectly fine. The question is not "should we allow alcohol", it's "what regulation do we put around alcohol to encourage its responsible use". Prohibition failed for a reason. The exact same thing applies to firearms. The exact same thing applies to weed. There is a reason why weed is slowly but surely become legalized in western countries. We don't ban it outright, we legalize it, regulate it, make it easier for being to be safe and responsible in how they approach it. Rather than getting their weed from shitty drug dealers who shoot up cities, we now get them through safe legal vendors.

On September 26 2016 00:53 TheDwf wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 25 2016 23:20 Incognoto wrote:
I'm not talking out of my ass either, I've already been to rural areas during hunting season. They're responsible in how they use the guns. The firearms are pointed at the ground, unloaded. Very little risk to other humans, absolutely no malicious intent whatsoever. All armed to the teeth.

Yeah, well, in France the majority of the population would still be pleased if hunting could be forbidden on Sundays (78%), and feels unsafe during the hunting season (61%). Source

And even if people are cautious, mortal hunting accidents do happen (~15-20 deaths per season the last years, including a minority of non-hunters).

Yes the alcohol culture in some of our countries is beyond stupid, and smoking kills far more than firearms in some places, etc. But societies aren't organized rationally, so naturally you can always fairly “arbitrary” choices regarding freedom to do such or such thing. It doesn't really nullify the gun question. (Plus, prohibition was tried for alcohol, and it didn't work.)

You cannot simply summon individual freedom in a vacuum, you have to consider “negative externalities”. Which is why there are campaigns against passive smoking, drunk driving, and a gun question.


20 deaths is nothing. It could be 60 and it would still be nothing. Nothing compared to alcohol, tobacco, drugs, cars.

I also do not simply put individual freedom in a vacuum, it's actually insulting you say that because I specifically said
They don't really cause problems though, because firearms are only attributed to individuals who have proven that they are responsible enough to wield them. You may argue that firearms and "free, safe societies" are mutually exclusive. That would be factually incorrect.


So I do not put it in vacuum, I clearly state that a responsible firearm owner can be trusted (and is trusted in pretty much most countries) to not be a danger to others.

Let's talk driving. Why do we allow big, expensive cars? They pollute, their drivers are reckless. Why should anyone be allowed to have a car which goes over 100hp? A 90hp Clio is more than enough to get around anywhere, there are speed limits anyway. We should ban any car over 100 hp because no one "needs" that kind of power in a vehicle. No more sports cars, no more Audi and BWM ego-machines. There are powerful trucks available if you need to haul a heavy load. Ban private transportation entirely, you're only allowed public transit.

Why should we allow private pilots to fly? They're just doing it for fun, but they're putting their lives, other people's lives, property, etc. at risk.

If we adhere to your communist logic (fun fact: in communist Russia, there was only one car you could buy), then there should be no private anything. If we apply your logic to other issues which aren't firearms, then we quickly go into a disgusting 1984 society. I don't want that and neither do you. Putting focus only on firearms as you are doing is false. You can't have double standards when it comes to what you want banned and what you don't want.

You want people to be responsible, then put regulations in place which encourage responsible use. There are penalties for drunk driving. People aren't encouraged to not drink, they're encourage to drink responsibly. In the same way, we should never be forbidding firearms entirely, we should be putting place regulation which means that only responsible people, with no malicious intent, should be allowed to have firearms. Don't pretend that firearm owners are incompatible. I would never prevent anyone from owning a gun, as I would never prevent anyone from doing BMX, drinking or doing drugs. As long as they respect the rest of us, it's fine.

I don't know why I bother, both you and nebuchad only pick out one or two lines from the paragraphs I write and completely ignore the rest of what I said. I basically re-wrote my original post in this one.
maru lover forever
TheDwf
Profile Joined November 2011
France19747 Posts
September 25 2016 19:24 GMT
#12783
Fascist thinking, fascism, 1984 society, communist logic... Don't you think the equivalent of 4 Godwin points for such a discussion is overkill? Next time, if our posts piss you off, please take some time to breathe instead of over-reacting, the brown shirts are nowhere to be seen here.

Will answer you a bit later.
farvacola
Profile Blog Joined January 2011
United States18838 Posts
Last Edited: 2016-09-25 20:15:01
September 25 2016 20:14 GMT
#12784
On September 26 2016 04:13 Incognoto wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +
On September 25 2016 23:54 Nebuchad wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 25 2016 23:20 Incognoto wrote:
On September 25 2016 18:13 Nebuchad wrote:
On September 25 2016 16:55 Incognoto wrote:
On September 25 2016 12:31 Nebuchad wrote:
On September 25 2016 12:14 micronesia wrote:
On September 25 2016 12:02 Sermokala wrote:
Thats not as good of an argument as it sounds though. If they didn't have access to guns those deaths wouldn't happen and that is the goal of gun control people.

Granted the big problem with gun control people is that they almost always argue for policies that won't help the situation in either case but thats the issue we've been aruging about for 600 pages or so.

you could use it for every death. If people didn't have access to cars, nobody would die in car accidents.


All right, but go further than that. It is true that people wouldn't die in car accidents if they weren't using cars. However, as a society, we have acknowledged that the benefits of using cars largely outweigh the inconvenients of using them. Which is why we accept that number. Sure, we try and limit it as much as we can, but we aren't ready to stop using cars entirely, which is the only way to eliminate this number entirely. It might sound harsh to say it like that, but the problem just isn't important enough.

A conversation on gun control will happen between someone who thinks that the same standard of utility is met when it comes to gun possession or gun proliferation (depending on whether the argument is about gun control or gun bans), and someone who doesn't. I think this is a discussion worthy of being had.

As a sidenote, it's why it always annoys me when people oppose the death penalty "only because you can kill innocents", or use innocents being killed as the center of their argument against it. That's not in itself an argument against the death penalty.


No this is an absolutely silly and hypocritical argument.

Let's change "cars" to alcohol or tobacco. Where's your argument now? Where is the "benefit to society" from those? There's no utility to alcohol yet the death toll is pretty much x10 that of firearms?

Let's take it a step further. Whether or not firearms have actual "uses" is completely and entirely irrelevant to the argument. We live in FREE societies, not Soviet Russia or bad countries like the UK or Australia which has a bad history of impeding on individual rights. If someone wants to own and use a firearm, he is entitled to do that, so long as he is responsible in how he uses it.


Alcohol allows you to get drunk, which I'm told is a state people enjoy being in given that they have consistently gotten in that state for thousands of years. Society recognizes that certain things are pleasurable, and as such allows for them.

Freedom has always had limits and will always have limits. Where that limit is set is a matter of debate and doesn't in any way mean that we aren't a free society.


Why precisely are you allowed to enjoy yourself being drunk and I am not allowed to enjoy my sport shooting or hunting? Why is YOUR pleasure somehow better than mine?


I don't drink much. This isn't about your pleasure or mine, this is about discussions that deserve to be had. When we discuss gun control or gun bans, the discussion that is being had is "Are guns beneficial enough to society to justify the harm that they are causing." We can have the same discussion about cars, and we will find that they are, which is why what micronesia pointed out isn't exactly relevant to the gun situation. We can have the same discussion about alcohol, and I would assume that we find that it is beneficial as well. Perhaps you disagree. Perhaps you think that alcohol is a net loss for humanity. If that is the case, what you have here is an argument for limiting alcohol consumption, not an argument for dismissing benefits and losses in other contexts.


No, the discussion is not, and should not, be "are guns beneficial enough to society to justify the harm they're doing". That is fascist thinking, it's government micromanagement, it's abhorrent to look at any problem that way.

The question is not "why should we allow X", the question is "why shouldn't we allow X". There is a huge difference in both approaches. The former is fascism and the latter is what we do in normal, free societies. It's quite similar to "innocent until proven guilty". I think that BMX biking, mountain climbing, etc. are dangerous. I wouldn't do those activities. I would never prevent anyone else from doing it if they wish, because they aren't harming me when they do that.

In the same way, someone who drinks alcohol in moderation and doesn't drink & drive is perfectly fine. The question is not "should we allow alcohol", it's "what regulation do we put around alcohol to encourage its responsible use". Prohibition failed for a reason. The exact same thing applies to firearms. The exact same thing applies to weed. There is a reason why weed is slowly but surely become legalized in western countries. We don't ban it outright, we legalize it, regulate it, make it easier for being to be safe and responsible in how they approach it. Rather than getting their weed from shitty drug dealers who shoot up cities, we now get them through safe legal vendors.

On September 26 2016 00:53 TheDwf wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 25 2016 23:20 Incognoto wrote:
I'm not talking out of my ass either, I've already been to rural areas during hunting season. They're responsible in how they use the guns. The firearms are pointed at the ground, unloaded. Very little risk to other humans, absolutely no malicious intent whatsoever. All armed to the teeth.

Yeah, well, in France the majority of the population would still be pleased if hunting could be forbidden on Sundays (78%), and feels unsafe during the hunting season (61%). Source

And even if people are cautious, mortal hunting accidents do happen (~15-20 deaths per season the last years, including a minority of non-hunters).

Yes the alcohol culture in some of our countries is beyond stupid, and smoking kills far more than firearms in some places, etc. But societies aren't organized rationally, so naturally you can always fairly “arbitrary” choices regarding freedom to do such or such thing. It doesn't really nullify the gun question. (Plus, prohibition was tried for alcohol, and it didn't work.)

You cannot simply summon individual freedom in a vacuum, you have to consider “negative externalities”. Which is why there are campaigns against passive smoking, drunk driving, and a gun question.


20 deaths is nothing. It could be 60 and it would still be nothing. Nothing compared to alcohol, tobacco, drugs, cars.

I also do not simply put individual freedom in a vacuum, it's actually insulting you say that because I specifically said
They don't really cause problems though, because firearms are only attributed to individuals who have proven that they are responsible enough to wield them. You may argue that firearms and "free, safe societies" are mutually exclusive. That would be factually incorrect.


So I do not put it in vacuum, I clearly state that a responsible firearm owner can be trusted (and is trusted in pretty much most countries) to not be a danger to others.

Let's talk driving. Why do we allow big, expensive cars? They pollute, their drivers are reckless. Why should anyone be allowed to have a car which goes over 100hp? A 90hp Clio is more than enough to get around anywhere, there are speed limits anyway. We should ban any car over 100 hp because no one "needs" that kind of power in a vehicle. No more sports cars, no more Audi and BWM ego-machines. There are powerful trucks available if you need to haul a heavy load. Ban private transportation entirely, you're only allowed public transit.

Why should we allow private pilots to fly? They're just doing it for fun, but they're putting their lives, other people's lives, property, etc. at risk.

If we adhere to your communist logic (fun fact: in communist Russia, there was only one car you could buy), then there should be no private anything. If we apply your logic to other issues which aren't firearms, then we quickly go into a disgusting 1984 society. I don't want that and neither do you. Putting focus only on firearms as you are doing is false. You can't have double standards when it comes to what you want banned and what you don't want.

You want people to be responsible, then put regulations in place which encourage responsible use. There are penalties for drunk driving. People aren't encouraged to not drink, they're encourage to drink responsibly. In the same way, we should never be forbidding firearms entirely, we should be putting place regulation which means that only responsible people, with no malicious intent, should be allowed to have firearms. Don't pretend that firearm owners are incompatible. I would never prevent anyone from owning a gun, as I would never prevent anyone from doing BMX, drinking or doing drugs. As long as they respect the rest of us, it's fine.

I don't know why I bother, both you and nebuchad only pick out one or two lines from the paragraphs I write and completely ignore the rest of what I said. I basically re-wrote my original post in this one.

I'm curious; do you know much about the process through which seatbelts (or maybe you know them as safety belts) were made mandatory in US automobiles?
"when the Dead Kennedys found out they had skinhead fans, they literally wrote a song titled 'Nazi Punks Fuck Off'"
Incognoto
Profile Blog Joined May 2010
France10239 Posts
September 26 2016 11:00 GMT
#12785
On September 26 2016 05:14 farvacola wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 26 2016 04:13 Incognoto wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +
On September 25 2016 23:54 Nebuchad wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 25 2016 23:20 Incognoto wrote:
On September 25 2016 18:13 Nebuchad wrote:
On September 25 2016 16:55 Incognoto wrote:
On September 25 2016 12:31 Nebuchad wrote:
On September 25 2016 12:14 micronesia wrote:
On September 25 2016 12:02 Sermokala wrote:
Thats not as good of an argument as it sounds though. If they didn't have access to guns those deaths wouldn't happen and that is the goal of gun control people.

Granted the big problem with gun control people is that they almost always argue for policies that won't help the situation in either case but thats the issue we've been aruging about for 600 pages or so.

you could use it for every death. If people didn't have access to cars, nobody would die in car accidents.


All right, but go further than that. It is true that people wouldn't die in car accidents if they weren't using cars. However, as a society, we have acknowledged that the benefits of using cars largely outweigh the inconvenients of using them. Which is why we accept that number. Sure, we try and limit it as much as we can, but we aren't ready to stop using cars entirely, which is the only way to eliminate this number entirely. It might sound harsh to say it like that, but the problem just isn't important enough.

A conversation on gun control will happen between someone who thinks that the same standard of utility is met when it comes to gun possession or gun proliferation (depending on whether the argument is about gun control or gun bans), and someone who doesn't. I think this is a discussion worthy of being had.

As a sidenote, it's why it always annoys me when people oppose the death penalty "only because you can kill innocents", or use innocents being killed as the center of their argument against it. That's not in itself an argument against the death penalty.


No this is an absolutely silly and hypocritical argument.

Let's change "cars" to alcohol or tobacco. Where's your argument now? Where is the "benefit to society" from those? There's no utility to alcohol yet the death toll is pretty much x10 that of firearms?

Let's take it a step further. Whether or not firearms have actual "uses" is completely and entirely irrelevant to the argument. We live in FREE societies, not Soviet Russia or bad countries like the UK or Australia which has a bad history of impeding on individual rights. If someone wants to own and use a firearm, he is entitled to do that, so long as he is responsible in how he uses it.


Alcohol allows you to get drunk, which I'm told is a state people enjoy being in given that they have consistently gotten in that state for thousands of years. Society recognizes that certain things are pleasurable, and as such allows for them.

Freedom has always had limits and will always have limits. Where that limit is set is a matter of debate and doesn't in any way mean that we aren't a free society.


Why precisely are you allowed to enjoy yourself being drunk and I am not allowed to enjoy my sport shooting or hunting? Why is YOUR pleasure somehow better than mine?


I don't drink much. This isn't about your pleasure or mine, this is about discussions that deserve to be had. When we discuss gun control or gun bans, the discussion that is being had is "Are guns beneficial enough to society to justify the harm that they are causing." We can have the same discussion about cars, and we will find that they are, which is why what micronesia pointed out isn't exactly relevant to the gun situation. We can have the same discussion about alcohol, and I would assume that we find that it is beneficial as well. Perhaps you disagree. Perhaps you think that alcohol is a net loss for humanity. If that is the case, what you have here is an argument for limiting alcohol consumption, not an argument for dismissing benefits and losses in other contexts.


No, the discussion is not, and should not, be "are guns beneficial enough to society to justify the harm they're doing". That is fascist thinking, it's government micromanagement, it's abhorrent to look at any problem that way.

The question is not "why should we allow X", the question is "why shouldn't we allow X". There is a huge difference in both approaches. The former is fascism and the latter is what we do in normal, free societies. It's quite similar to "innocent until proven guilty". I think that BMX biking, mountain climbing, etc. are dangerous. I wouldn't do those activities. I would never prevent anyone else from doing it if they wish, because they aren't harming me when they do that.

In the same way, someone who drinks alcohol in moderation and doesn't drink & drive is perfectly fine. The question is not "should we allow alcohol", it's "what regulation do we put around alcohol to encourage its responsible use". Prohibition failed for a reason. The exact same thing applies to firearms. The exact same thing applies to weed. There is a reason why weed is slowly but surely become legalized in western countries. We don't ban it outright, we legalize it, regulate it, make it easier for being to be safe and responsible in how they approach it. Rather than getting their weed from shitty drug dealers who shoot up cities, we now get them through safe legal vendors.

On September 26 2016 00:53 TheDwf wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 25 2016 23:20 Incognoto wrote:
I'm not talking out of my ass either, I've already been to rural areas during hunting season. They're responsible in how they use the guns. The firearms are pointed at the ground, unloaded. Very little risk to other humans, absolutely no malicious intent whatsoever. All armed to the teeth.

Yeah, well, in France the majority of the population would still be pleased if hunting could be forbidden on Sundays (78%), and feels unsafe during the hunting season (61%). Source

And even if people are cautious, mortal hunting accidents do happen (~15-20 deaths per season the last years, including a minority of non-hunters).

Yes the alcohol culture in some of our countries is beyond stupid, and smoking kills far more than firearms in some places, etc. But societies aren't organized rationally, so naturally you can always fairly “arbitrary” choices regarding freedom to do such or such thing. It doesn't really nullify the gun question. (Plus, prohibition was tried for alcohol, and it didn't work.)

You cannot simply summon individual freedom in a vacuum, you have to consider “negative externalities”. Which is why there are campaigns against passive smoking, drunk driving, and a gun question.


20 deaths is nothing. It could be 60 and it would still be nothing. Nothing compared to alcohol, tobacco, drugs, cars.

I also do not simply put individual freedom in a vacuum, it's actually insulting you say that because I specifically said
They don't really cause problems though, because firearms are only attributed to individuals who have proven that they are responsible enough to wield them. You may argue that firearms and "free, safe societies" are mutually exclusive. That would be factually incorrect.


So I do not put it in vacuum, I clearly state that a responsible firearm owner can be trusted (and is trusted in pretty much most countries) to not be a danger to others.

Let's talk driving. Why do we allow big, expensive cars? They pollute, their drivers are reckless. Why should anyone be allowed to have a car which goes over 100hp? A 90hp Clio is more than enough to get around anywhere, there are speed limits anyway. We should ban any car over 100 hp because no one "needs" that kind of power in a vehicle. No more sports cars, no more Audi and BWM ego-machines. There are powerful trucks available if you need to haul a heavy load. Ban private transportation entirely, you're only allowed public transit.

Why should we allow private pilots to fly? They're just doing it for fun, but they're putting their lives, other people's lives, property, etc. at risk.

If we adhere to your communist logic (fun fact: in communist Russia, there was only one car you could buy), then there should be no private anything. If we apply your logic to other issues which aren't firearms, then we quickly go into a disgusting 1984 society. I don't want that and neither do you. Putting focus only on firearms as you are doing is false. You can't have double standards when it comes to what you want banned and what you don't want.

You want people to be responsible, then put regulations in place which encourage responsible use. There are penalties for drunk driving. People aren't encouraged to not drink, they're encourage to drink responsibly. In the same way, we should never be forbidding firearms entirely, we should be putting place regulation which means that only responsible people, with no malicious intent, should be allowed to have firearms. Don't pretend that firearm owners are incompatible. I would never prevent anyone from owning a gun, as I would never prevent anyone from doing BMX, drinking or doing drugs. As long as they respect the rest of us, it's fine.

I don't know why I bother, both you and nebuchad only pick out one or two lines from the paragraphs I write and completely ignore the rest of what I said. I basically re-wrote my original post in this one.

I'm curious; do you know much about the process through which seatbelts (or maybe you know them as safety belts) were made mandatory in US automobiles?


I don't but I'm guessing that it was long, drawn-out annoying process which took many deaths until it was accepted. It's stupid, yes. I'm not disagreeing with gun regulation and yes, the USA has an issue with that. Hence my referencing Europe. France and Germany have proper firearm laws, the UK does not.
maru lover forever
dontforgetosmile
Profile Joined April 2012
87 Posts
September 26 2016 22:10 GMT
#12786
On September 26 2016 00:53 TheDwf wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 25 2016 23:20 Incognoto wrote:
I'm not talking out of my ass either, I've already been to rural areas during hunting season. They're responsible in how they use the guns. The firearms are pointed at the ground, unloaded. Very little risk to other humans, absolutely no malicious intent whatsoever. All armed to the teeth.

Yeah, well, in France the majority of the population would still be pleased if hunting could be forbidden on Sundays (78%), and feels unsafe during the hunting season (61%). Source

And even if people are cautious, mortal hunting accidents do happen (~15-20 deaths per season the last years, including a minority of non-hunters).

Yes the alcohol culture in some of our countries is beyond stupid, and smoking kills far more than firearms in some places, etc. But societies aren't organized rationally, so naturally you can always fairly “arbitrary” choices regarding freedom to do such or such thing. It doesn't really nullify the gun question. (Plus, prohibition was tried for alcohol, and it didn't work.)

You cannot simply summon individual freedom in a vacuum, you have to consider “negative externalities”. Which is why there are campaigns against passive smoking, drunk driving, and a gun question.

i'm trying to parse the content of this post and i'm really having difficulty. on one hand, i see that you're talking about alcohol and how it objective kills more people than firearms, but in the same breath you are for asking the 'gun question'. what is the gun question?

you also mention that individual freedom can't be considered in a vacuum, but acknowledge that societies aren't rational and will make arbitrary decisions.

is it really an opinion formed in a vacuum when out of 300 million known firearms in circulation there are only 30k gun related deaths per year? of only which 10k are cause by malicious intent? how do we eliminate the remaining 66%? and for what reasons do the 33% exist?

no one is doing anyone any favors by asking the apparent 'gun question'. the gun question exists, it's just no one knows how to effectively answer it.
Psyonic_Reaver
Profile Blog Joined June 2007
United States4337 Posts
November 10 2016 04:12 GMT
#12787
Seattle shooting just occurred.

Not much info.

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/seattle-police-responding-to-reports-of-4-shot-downtown/
So wait? I'm bad? =(
Pontual
Profile Joined October 2016
Brazil3038 Posts
November 11 2016 16:26 GMT
#12788
On November 10 2016 13:12 Psyonic_Reaver wrote:
Seattle shooting just occurred.

Not much info.

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/seattle-police-responding-to-reports-of-4-shot-downtown/

Fuck, pls world Stop shooting persons. I just pray to God that this post could be the last in this thread. Whatever this God is, independent of wich religion is, just pls. Because humans are fucking shit up.
IAmWithStupid
Profile Blog Joined February 2013
Russian Federation1016 Posts
January 06 2017 19:40 GMT
#12789
Remember, no Russian.

User was warned for this post
Insert wise words here
Salazarz
Profile Blog Joined April 2012
Korea (South)2591 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-01-08 01:49:17
January 08 2017 01:48 GMT
#12790
(fun fact: in communist Russia, there was only one car you could buy)


Pretty hard to take anything you say seriously when your arguments are mixed with 'facts' like this.
acker
Profile Joined September 2010
United States2958 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-05-03 01:10:45
May 03 2017 01:04 GMT
#12791
Update on the Northern Arizona University Shooting:

+ Show Spoiler +


FLAGSTAFF — After a scant five days of intermittent deliberations at Coconino County Superior Court, the jury in the Northern Arizona University shooting case sent a note to Judge Dan Slayton.

"In the event that we cannot come to a consensus of guilty or not guilty on all counts, what shall we do?" the note read.

Slayton sent back a note. "Has the jury reached a verdict on any counts?"

The answer: "No."

Slayton sent them a standard written jury-impasse instruction, and they returned to deliberations. But it didn't matter.

Shortly after 4 p.m. Tuesday, Slayton gathered jurors back in courtroom. They still could not agree on a verdict. Slayton declared a mistrial.

Slayton set a tentative new trial date of Aug. 1 with the expectation it would be continued until a later date.

Slayton later told the media gathered outside the courthouse Tuesday afternoon that jurors had asked not to speak to the media.

Prosecutors Ammon Barker and Bryan Shea, and defense attorneys Burges McCowan and Joshua Davidson, also declined comment after the mistrial was declared.

Steven Jones, who stood accused of first-degree murder and aggravated assault in the October 2015 shootings, was present when the mistrial declared. After court was adjourned, he turned to hug and kiss his mother.

None of the surviving victims of the shooting and few of their family members attended the hastily called hearing Tuesday afternoon.

Reached later, Kim Prato, mother of surviving shooting victim Nick Prato, said, "We are saddened by the current jury’s inability to come to a consensus in this trial but are given strength with the fact we have the truth on our side and that justice will prevail."

The jury of six men and six women began deliberating April 25. But the specter of a mistrial appeared almost immediately when deliberations were suspended the next morning so Slayton could consider a defense motion arguing that prosecutors had misled the jury in closing arguments.

Prosecutors Barker and Shea earlier had convinced Slayton to preclude statements Jones made to police right after the shooting, while he was sitting in a patrol car, about thinking he was going to die during the attack and questioning why a group of fraternity brothers were trying to hurt him.

But then, in his closing statement, Barker led the jury to believe that Jones had made no statements related to self-defense until hours later at the police station. Defense attorney Davidson argued for a remedy.

Slayton denied the mistrial motion, but on April 27, he read an instruction to jurors informing them of Barker’s misrepresentation.

The jury then returned to deliberations.

Jones is charged with first-degree murder in the shooting death of Colin Brough during a fight at the edge of the NAU campus in fall 2015. He also faces aggravated assault charges in the wounding of three other students.

Jones has argued he fired his gun in self-defense. Prosecutors say his actions were premeditated.

The trial began April 4 and, over the course of three weeks, prosecutors and defense attorneys brought 37 witnesses to the stand, including the surviving victims and Jones himself.

As an 18-year-old freshman, Jones had parked his red Mustang in a parking lot on campus on the evening of Oct. 8, 2015. He and three of his friends, all pledges for the Sigma Chi fraternity, then walked to an off-campus apartment complex to attend a party.

They hung out, playing the game "Guitar Hero" for about an hour, then made their way back toward Jones’ car.

When they realized one of the group was no longer with them, they stopped to call him in front of an apartment building known as the Courtyard, where a party was taking place. They may have rung a doorbell, raising the ire of some Delta Chi fraternity brothers who had been trying to keep a lid on strangers coming into the party.

A shouting match ensued, though both sides disagree as to how aggressive the fraternity brothers were and whether Jones and friends were defiant.

Then one of the partygoers inexplicably ran up and sucker-punched Jones, knocking out a dental bridge in his mouth and knocking the glasses from his face.

Jones ran to his car and pulled a gun from the glove box. He then walked 90 feet to confront the attackers. He testified he thought they were still menacing his friends.

He says two students charged him and he fired, killing Brough and wounding Brough's roommate, Nick Piring. But other witnesses say Brough was only walking toward Jones and that Piring was running to Brough to try to calm him down.

As Jones tried to render aid to Brough, he claims he was jumped by the crowd and fired blindly in the air. Those shots wounded two other students, Prato and Kyle Zientek.

The tragedy made national news and shook NAU’s Flagstaff campus. It was the first school shooting in the university’s 116-year history. When news of the shooting broke in the early morning hours of Oct. 9, parents with children at NAU began texting and calling them to make sure they were all right.
Jones says he feared for his life

Jones was later charged with first-degree, premeditated murder and six counts of aggravated assault.

Over objections of the prosecution, Slayton released Jones on his own recognizance. He has been staying until now with his parents in Glendale.

Jones and his two friends described being set upon by a mob of mostly drunken and angry fraternity brothers.

The fraternity brothers denied there was any violence on their part after the first sucker punch, but Jones’ friends described being taken to the ground.

Jones claimed his life was in danger and that he fired on Brough and Piring because they were about to tackle him.

Prosecutors say Jones was never in danger for his life, and that he returned to the fight with premeditation — and a gun.

Though Piring and some of the other fraternity brothers testified that Jones and Brough were several feet apart, the autopsy report showed that Brough was two feet or closer to the muzzle of Jones’ gun when he fired. The trajectory of the bullets indicated that Brough was leaning forward as if lunging, as some witnesses said.

The prosecution suggested that perhaps Brough tripped and fell.

Both sides quibbled as to the number of people who jumped Jones after the first shooting.

Several of the witnesses described trying to subdue Jones and take away his gun. Jones said he was certain that if they took it from him, they would shoot him and kill him. He said he fired into the air, striking Prato and Zientek. The prosecution alleged that Jones intended to shoot them.

Each side accused the other of lying to protect their interests.



http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona/2017/05/02/steven-jones-nau-murder-trial-mistrial/306679001/
Nevuk
Profile Blog Joined March 2009
United States16280 Posts
October 02 2017 12:45 GMT
#12792

Makro
Profile Joined March 2011
France16890 Posts
October 02 2017 12:58 GMT
#12793
50 deads, 200 injured and the first reflex of people is to assign political view to this catastrophy

we are fucked
Matthew 5:10 "Blessed are those who are persecuted because of shitposting, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven".
TL+ Member
ahswtini
Profile Blog Joined June 2008
Northern Ireland22208 Posts
October 02 2017 13:18 GMT
#12794
On October 02 2017 21:45 Nevuk wrote:
https://twitter.com/ToTheVictor/status/914746045850042368
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/914801619312705537

Having trouble understanding what simply posting news tweets adds to this discussion
"As I've said, balance isn't about strategies or counters, it's about probability and statistics." - paralleluniverse
Nevuk
Profile Blog Joined March 2009
United States16280 Posts
October 02 2017 13:26 GMT
#12795
On October 02 2017 22:18 ahswtini wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 02 2017 21:45 Nevuk wrote:
https://twitter.com/ToTheVictor/status/914746045850042368
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/914801619312705537

Having trouble understanding what simply posting news tweets adds to this discussion

Just figured the thread would need bumped for discussion about it, since some is already going on in the politics thread. I don't personally get into arguments over abortion or guns.
Pandemona *
Profile Blog Joined March 2011
Charlie Sheens House51493 Posts
October 02 2017 13:35 GMT
#12796
64 year old man, retired? i think he was, decides to unleash many many rounds and then kills himself? How very very random
ModeratorTeam Liquid Football Thread Guru! - Chelsea FC ♥
RealityIsKing
Profile Joined August 2016
613 Posts
October 02 2017 13:38 GMT
#12797
RIP to the people of LV tonight.

Hopefully the injured people gets the proper treatment.
Plansix
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States60190 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-10-02 13:44:25
October 02 2017 13:43 GMT
#12798
Everything about this sucks. And the more details will likely show that people should have seen this coming. Because hindsight is great at pointing out where we failed to see what was directly in front of us.
I have the Honor to be your Obedient Servant, P.6
TL+ Member
Aveng3r
Profile Joined February 2012
United States2411 Posts
October 02 2017 13:43 GMT
#12799
God Fucking Damn it
I carve marble busts of assassinated world leaders - PM for a quote
DarkPlasmaBall
Profile Blog Joined March 2010
United States45024 Posts
October 02 2017 14:04 GMT
#12800
This article is never not relevant RIP Las Vegas <3

http://www.theonion.com/article/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-36131
"There is nothing more satisfying than looking at a crowd of people and helping them get what I love." ~Day[9] Daily #100
Prev 1 638 639 640 641 642 891 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
WardiTV Korean Royale
12:00
Group Stage 1 - Group B
WardiTV1149
TKL 402
Rex130
IntoTheiNu 39
LiquipediaDiscussion
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
TKL 402
RotterdaM 235
Rex 130
SortOf 94
Vindicta 25
StarCraft: Brood War
Calm 4075
Soma 1095
Shuttle 996
firebathero 815
Hyuk 666
Stork 468
ZerO 392
hero 302
Rush 210
Sharp 111
[ Show more ]
Barracks 102
sSak 99
Killer 86
Sea.KH 65
Aegong 43
Backho 42
Mong 32
ToSsGirL 30
Free 25
Sexy 23
Terrorterran 20
Movie 16
zelot 15
Shine 15
Dota 2
singsing2153
Dendi1061
BananaSlamJamma136
XcaliburYe117
Counter-Strike
olofmeister1756
markeloff105
FunKaTv 14
Other Games
B2W.Neo1006
hiko643
crisheroes346
Hui .316
Lowko292
DeMusliM278
Sick200
Fuzer 165
ArmadaUGS133
Liquid`VortiX127
oskar97
Reynor58
ZerO(Twitch)15
Organizations
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 16 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Adnapsc2 5
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• HerbMon 23
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
Dota 2
• C_a_k_e 2327
• WagamamaTV363
League of Legends
• Nemesis3564
• TFBlade698
Upcoming Events
OSC
41m
Replay Cast
7h 41m
Replay Cast
17h 41m
Kung Fu Cup
20h 41m
Classic vs Solar
herO vs Cure
Reynor vs GuMiho
ByuN vs ShoWTimE
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
1d 7h
The PondCast
1d 18h
RSL Revival
1d 18h
Solar vs Zoun
MaxPax vs Bunny
Kung Fu Cup
1d 20h
WardiTV Korean Royale
1d 20h
PiGosaur Monday
2 days
[ Show More ]
RSL Revival
2 days
Classic vs Creator
Cure vs TriGGeR
Kung Fu Cup
2 days
CranKy Ducklings
3 days
RSL Revival
3 days
herO vs Gerald
ByuN vs SHIN
Kung Fu Cup
3 days
BSL 21
4 days
Tarson vs Julia
Doodle vs OldBoy
eOnzErG vs WolFix
StRyKeR vs Aeternum
Sparkling Tuna Cup
4 days
RSL Revival
4 days
Reynor vs sOs
Maru vs Ryung
Kung Fu Cup
4 days
WardiTV Korean Royale
4 days
BSL 21
5 days
JDConan vs Semih
Dragon vs Dienmax
Tech vs NewOcean
TerrOr vs Artosis
Wardi Open
5 days
Monday Night Weeklies
6 days
WardiTV Korean Royale
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

Proleague 2025-11-07
Stellar Fest: Constellation Cup
Eternal Conflict S1

Ongoing

C-Race Season 1
IPSL Winter 2025-26
KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 4
SOOP Univ League 2025
YSL S2
BSL Season 21
IEM Chengdu 2025
PGL Masters Bucharest 2025
Thunderpick World Champ.
CS Asia Championships 2025
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual

Upcoming

SLON Tour Season 2
BSL 21 Non-Korean Championship
Acropolis #4
IPSL Spring 2026
HSC XXVIII
RSL Offline Finals
WardiTV 2025
RSL Revival: Season 3
META Madness #9
BLAST Bounty Winter 2026
BLAST Bounty Winter 2026: Closed Qualifier
eXTREMESLAND 2025
ESL Impact League Season 8
SL Budapest Major 2025
BLAST Rivals Fall 2025
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.