|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On October 03 2017 03:44 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2017 03:42 F1rstAssau1t wrote:
The white terrorism in America is getting out of hand.
But this story is gonna be remember for 10 days and then forgotten until the next mass shooting happends. Of course not. It will be remembered as evidence that the country is dangerous and that you need to buy guns to protect yourself within it. Why not capitalize on an opportunity like this.
"Right, If only those in the crowd also had guns, they would have been able to protect themselves"
It makes me sick that there are a lot of people in my country that think this way
|
|
|
On October 03 2017 04:00 Aveng3r wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2017 03:44 Nebuchad wrote:On October 03 2017 03:42 F1rstAssau1t wrote:
The white terrorism in America is getting out of hand.
But this story is gonna be remember for 10 days and then forgotten until the next mass shooting happends. Of course not. It will be remembered as evidence that the country is dangerous and that you need to buy guns to protect yourself within it. Why not capitalize on an opportunity like this. "Right, If only those in the crowd also had guns, they would have been able to protect themselves" It makes me sick that there are a lot of people in my country that think this way
I def don't think like that; given I'm completely ignorant in the matter, shouldn't casinos guards have pistols? And places where tons of people gather have some sort of security above a guy with a batoon? Maybe not this event in particular, but massive crowds like a Lady Gaga concert. (specially in the US).
Also, excuse me if I am assuming your position, don't you think that the ban guns = guns dissapearing is an extremely naive point of view? Do you think that prohibiting drugs works?
Virtually everyone has a gun in switzerland, and they are essentially illegal in Mexico, which has 0 correlation with their gun on gun crime rate. I believe the problem is more complex than banning stuff.
|
On October 03 2017 04:00 Aveng3r wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2017 03:44 Nebuchad wrote:On October 03 2017 03:42 F1rstAssau1t wrote:
The white terrorism in America is getting out of hand.
But this story is gonna be remember for 10 days and then forgotten until the next mass shooting happends. Of course not. It will be remembered as evidence that the country is dangerous and that you need to buy guns to protect yourself within it. Why not capitalize on an opportunity like this. "Right, If only those in the crowd also had guns, they would have been able to protect themselves" It makes me sick that there are a lot of people in my country that think this way
It's also a tragedy that the majority of people in our country have just decided that we're going to constantly have mass shootings on a regular basis, and that's just something we live with.
|
On October 03 2017 04:19 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2017 04:00 Aveng3r wrote:On October 03 2017 03:44 Nebuchad wrote:On October 03 2017 03:42 F1rstAssau1t wrote:
The white terrorism in America is getting out of hand.
But this story is gonna be remember for 10 days and then forgotten until the next mass shooting happends. Of course not. It will be remembered as evidence that the country is dangerous and that you need to buy guns to protect yourself within it. Why not capitalize on an opportunity like this. "Right, If only those in the crowd also had guns, they would have been able to protect themselves" It makes me sick that there are a lot of people in my country that think this way I def don't think like that; given I'm completely ignorant in the matter, shouldn't casinos guards have pistols? And places where tons of people gather have some sort of security above a guy with a batoon? Maybe not this event in particular, but massive crowds like a Lady Gaga concert. (specially in the US). Also, excuse me if I am assuming your position, don't you think that the ban guns = guns dissapearing is an extremely naive point of view? Do you think that prohibiting drugs works? Virtually everyone has a gun in switzerland, and they are essentially illegal in Mexico, which has 0 correlation with their gun on gun crime rate. I believe the problem is more complex than banning stuff.
You don't understand how guns in switzerland work. Gun guys in the US never do, but still use it as an example. A swiss guy explained it here a few shootings back.
And if you go about it the right way, you can have less guns in circulation. Of course regulating guns doesn't make the disappear. No one believes that. But if you regulate guns over a longer period of time, and have government programs to decrease the amount in the population (Buybacks etc...), you can eventually reduce the amount of guns. It will not change stuff over night, but that is no excuse never to start doing anything.
Regarding the "people should shoot the guy to stop him from shooting them: Turns out it is really hard to figure out where bullets are coming from while you are being shot at. Real bullets usually don't leave tracer beams in the air. And once people start shooting back, it becomes even harder to figure out who the original shooter was, and who the people who shoot at the shooter are. People don't have red text over their heads to show you that they are bad people.
|
It is because the fear of gun control legislation drives gun sales. For example, gun sales were extremely high during Obama's presidency.
|
On October 03 2017 04:19 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2017 04:00 Aveng3r wrote:On October 03 2017 03:44 Nebuchad wrote:On October 03 2017 03:42 F1rstAssau1t wrote:
The white terrorism in America is getting out of hand.
But this story is gonna be remember for 10 days and then forgotten until the next mass shooting happends. Of course not. It will be remembered as evidence that the country is dangerous and that you need to buy guns to protect yourself within it. Why not capitalize on an opportunity like this. "Right, If only those in the crowd also had guns, they would have been able to protect themselves" It makes me sick that there are a lot of people in my country that think this way I def don't think like that; given I'm completely ignorant in the matter, shouldn't casinos guards have pistols? And places where tons of people gather have some sort of security above a guy with a batoon? Maybe not this event in particular, but massive crowds like a Lady Gaga concert. (specially in the US). Also, excuse me if I am assuming your position, don't you think that the ban guns = guns dissapearing is an extremely naive point of view? Do you think that prohibiting drugs works? Virtually everyone has a gun in switzerland, and they are essentially illegal in Mexico, which has 0 correlation with their gun on gun crime rate. I believe the problem is more complex than banning stuff.
No.. Im just calling out what is probably a vocal minority, but it is an argument that I have heard before
|
On October 03 2017 04:19 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2017 04:00 Aveng3r wrote:On October 03 2017 03:44 Nebuchad wrote:On October 03 2017 03:42 F1rstAssau1t wrote:
The white terrorism in America is getting out of hand.
But this story is gonna be remember for 10 days and then forgotten until the next mass shooting happends. Of course not. It will be remembered as evidence that the country is dangerous and that you need to buy guns to protect yourself within it. Why not capitalize on an opportunity like this. "Right, If only those in the crowd also had guns, they would have been able to protect themselves" It makes me sick that there are a lot of people in my country that think this way Virtually everyone has a gun in switzerland
As a general rule, when a republican politician talks about Switzerland, you should assume that they're lying.
Because they are.
Actually, as a general rule, when a republican politician is talking, you should probably assume they're lying no matter what. But in this case I'm here, so...
|
Genuine question.
What are the reasons why automatic/semi auto/military grade weapons are allowed to be owned by civilians? I can see ZERO reasons why a civilian would need such a weapon.
|
United States24754 Posts
On October 03 2017 10:01 DucK- wrote:
Genuine question.
What are the reasons why automatic/semi auto/military grade weapons are allowed to be owned by civilians? I can see ZERO reasons why a civilian would need such a weapon.
I think you need a different approach. While there's nothing wrong with trying to better understand why people are willing to fight for something that you don't understand the value of, it's another thing to say people should be willing to give something up simply because they don't need it. I'm sure there are plenty of things you want but don't need too (that you aren't about to give up). You would be better off making a legitimate argument.
|
On October 03 2017 10:11 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2017 10:01 DucK- wrote:
Genuine question.
What are the reasons why automatic/semi auto/military grade weapons are allowed to be owned by civilians? I can see ZERO reasons why a civilian would need such a weapon. I think you need a different approach. While there's nothing wrong with trying to better understand why people are willing to fight for something that you don't understand the value of, it's another thing to say people should be willing to give something up simply because they don't need it. I'm sure there are plenty of things you want but don't need too (that you aren't about to give up). You would be better off making a legitimate argument.
So freedom's the answer I guess. Would the same reasoning work for drugs, explosives etc?
|
United States24754 Posts
On October 03 2017 10:17 DucK- wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2017 10:11 micronesia wrote:On October 03 2017 10:01 DucK- wrote:
Genuine question.
What are the reasons why automatic/semi auto/military grade weapons are allowed to be owned by civilians? I can see ZERO reasons why a civilian would need such a weapon. I think you need a different approach. While there's nothing wrong with trying to better understand why people are willing to fight for something that you don't understand the value of, it's another thing to say people should be willing to give something up simply because they don't need it. I'm sure there are plenty of things you want but don't need too (that you aren't about to give up). You would be better off making a legitimate argument. So freedom's the answer I guess. Would the same reasoning work for drugs, explosives etc?
I don't think you understood my response at all. You claimed you wanted to understand the other side with a genuine question but you aren't even reading.
|
On October 03 2017 10:01 DucK- wrote:
Genuine question.
What are the reasons why automatic/semi auto/military grade weapons are allowed to be owned by civilians? I can see ZERO reasons why a civilian would need such a weapon.
Frankly I think that is a very legitimate question, although I personally am of two minds on the subject. The short answer is that civilians should have the right to own such weapons as a protection from their own government, in fact this is really the foundation of the entire 2nd amendment of the United States as I understand it. On the surface this idea seems outdated and perhaps crazy in the modern world, however I do believe there should exist some check to the overwhelming power of centralized government. If you look at history there are countless examples of dictators and tyrants taking control of the military and if this is the case an unarmed populace has literally zero recourse.
Not sure if this argument is compelling enough, counter points might be that civilians will be grossly outgunned anyway by a modern military like the one the United States possesses, in addition the military is sworn to protect its citizens, it seems the only way a tyrant could take power would be with the support of the general public like what occurred in Germany in 1933.
Anyway this is just my understanding underlying reasoning.
I would also like to point out it is really hard to make reasoned arguments at a time like this, personally this tragedy has hit super close to home, I live in Las Vegas and am at school at UNLV(about 4 blocks from the strip). It is just surreal to have such a horrible event take place so near where you live.
|
On October 03 2017 10:18 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2017 10:17 DucK- wrote:On October 03 2017 10:11 micronesia wrote:On October 03 2017 10:01 DucK- wrote:
Genuine question.
What are the reasons why automatic/semi auto/military grade weapons are allowed to be owned by civilians? I can see ZERO reasons why a civilian would need such a weapon. I think you need a different approach. While there's nothing wrong with trying to better understand why people are willing to fight for something that you don't understand the value of, it's another thing to say people should be willing to give something up simply because they don't need it. I'm sure there are plenty of things you want but don't need too (that you aren't about to give up). You would be better off making a legitimate argument. So freedom's the answer I guess. Would the same reasoning work for drugs, explosives etc? I don't think you understood my response at all. You claimed you wanted to understand the other side with a genuine question but you aren't even reading.
?
In my side of the world, we readily give up some 'freedom' for an overall greater good and net gain. We give up our rights to own firearms (can't even own airsoft lol) and in return, we never have to face the fear of anyone pulling out a gun on you in a dispute, or the probability of mass shooting, or even the threat of being shot (whether real or fake gun). We can't make harmful racial/religious insults, and in return our level of racial/religious tolerance and cohesion is high. Mosques and churches right beside each other, mosques opening its premises to help churches accommodate a bigger crowd during festivities and vice versa.
If we go by the logic of trading, then what we have makes sense. What do we lose out at the end of the day? I can't own a firearm which I don't intend to ever use, I can't make racial/religious insults which no 'good natured' person should do. And i gain a safe and harmonious society. Overall a net gain because I don't even need these stuff.
So I approached my initial question the same way. Why do you hold on to something that you might not need. I read some arguments that you need a gun so that you can defend yourself. Ok sure, maybe you do need a gun, but do you really need an auto/semi?
You convinced me that your side of the world thinks differently. Or maybe its the same, just that while I equate not needing something to be of zero value and hence I deem to have a net gain, you view freedom to own these weapons to be of the highest value and trading it away presents an overall net loss instead.
So then I just asked if the same reasoning that the freedom to own or use drugs/explosives would apply by the same logic. I'm not even trying to convince...just trying to understand the rationale.
|
I suppose everyone having guns does potentially stop shit like what happened in Spain from going on (basically a state held a referendum for independence which was illegal and the police came in relatively hard and broke it up). Or if everyone in Venezuela had a small gun stash, would they really go full civil war against a dictator.
Interestingly Singapore is a good example of where limited freedom does make a successful country whereas the UK has just gone and voted for a brexit without any idea of what the implications were because freedom.
|
On October 03 2017 11:08 DucK- wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2017 10:18 micronesia wrote:On October 03 2017 10:17 DucK- wrote:On October 03 2017 10:11 micronesia wrote:On October 03 2017 10:01 DucK- wrote:
Genuine question.
What are the reasons why automatic/semi auto/military grade weapons are allowed to be owned by civilians? I can see ZERO reasons why a civilian would need such a weapon. I think you need a different approach. While there's nothing wrong with trying to better understand why people are willing to fight for something that you don't understand the value of, it's another thing to say people should be willing to give something up simply because they don't need it. I'm sure there are plenty of things you want but don't need too (that you aren't about to give up). You would be better off making a legitimate argument. So freedom's the answer I guess. Would the same reasoning work for drugs, explosives etc? I don't think you understood my response at all. You claimed you wanted to understand the other side with a genuine question but you aren't even reading. ? In my side of the world, we readily give up some 'freedom' for an overall greater good and net gain. We give up our rights to own firearms (can't even own airsoft lol) and in return, we never have to face the fear of anyone pulling out a gun on you in a dispute, or the probability of mass shooting, or even the threat of being shot (whether real or fake gun). We can't make harmful racial/religious insults, and in return our level of racial/religious tolerance and cohesion is high. Mosques and churches right beside each other, mosques opening its premises to help churches accommodate a bigger crowd during festivities and vice versa. If we go by the logic of trading, then what we have makes sense. What do we lose out at the end of the day? I can't own a firearm which I don't intend to ever use, I can't make racial/religious insults which no 'good natured' person should do. And i gain a safe and harmonious society. Overall a net gain because I don't even need these stuff. So I approached my initial question the same way. Why do you hold on to something that you might not need. I read some arguments that you need a gun so that you can defend yourself. Ok sure, maybe you do need a gun, but do you really need an auto/semi? You convinced me that your side of the world thinks differently. Or maybe its the same, just that while I equate not needing something to be of zero value and hence I deem to have a net gain, you view freedom to own these weapons to be of the highest value and trading it away presents an overall net loss instead. So then I just asked if the same reasoning that the freedom to own or use drugs/explosives would apply by the same logic. I'm not even trying to convince...just trying to understand the rationale.
Read my response above for rationale.
Also I am not sure why your are bringing up the harmful racial/religious insults, I do not get the connection. I would quickly say that outlawing any speech is in my opinion VERY dangerous as basically that means if the majority decide something is "hate speech" they can than than oppress the minority opinion creating a culture of group think.
|
On October 03 2017 11:31 MoonfireSpam wrote:
I suppose everyone having guns does potentially stop shit like what happened in Spain from going on (basically a state held a referendum for independence which was illegal and the police came in relatively hard and broke it up). Or if everyone in Venezuela had a small gun stash, would they really go full civil war against a dictator?
That is a hard question to answer, I think if enough people were desperate and oppressed and they had the means to revolt effectively, e.g. long range rifles, than maybe they would rise up and overthrow the regime in Venezuela.
|
It comes down to either allowing people to be dumb fucks at the expense of the majority.
Or limiting freedoms that most people won't do anyway to try a limit the damage a single dumb fuck can get up to (e.g. not allowing random people to go around shouting from a megaphone that all black people should be put back in slavery).
Not really a right answer.
|
On October 03 2017 11:39 MoonfireSpam wrote:
It comes down to either allowing people to be dumb fucks at the expense of the majority.
Or limiting freedoms that most people won't do anyway to try a limit the damage a single dumb fuck can get up to (e.g. not allowing random people to go around shouting from a megaphone that all black people should be put back in slavery).
Not really a right answer.
Pretty sure the person with the megaphone would be taken into custody for disturbing the peace, just to avoid him getting murdered.
|
On October 03 2017 11:39 MoonfireSpam wrote:
It comes down to either allowing people to be dumb fucks at the expense of the majority.
Or limiting freedoms that most people won't do anyway to try a limit the damage a single dumb fuck can get up to (e.g. not allowing random people to go around shouting from a megaphone that all black people should be put back in slavery).
Not really a right answer.
That right there is the issue, a random person shouting racist things does not do damage, what does damage is when you allow speech to be infringed for any reason. Once you allow some speech to be infringed where do you draw your line of protection? Say 60% say something is "Hate Speech" now you can get arrested and shot if you are in the minority of 40% of people, and the truth is people are easily swayed by media and charismatic politicians, just look at history, so before you know it ideas are being crushed simply because they do not fit a national narrative of group think. This is a potentially catastrophic situation for a nation, when differing opinions are not allowed to exist. Just look at some campuses now who have blocked Ben Shapiro from speaking on their campus, how can a place of learning block peaceful and democratic debate from even occurring?! To me that is far more dangerous than a few hundred morons walking around spewing racial vitriol. Their words themselves will condemn them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
