|
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 February 16 2018 03:41 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
By the way, while you are in fantasy land, if the US government has turned into an oppresive entity that you need to resist violently, you have already lost. Also I don't know why you want to fight with guns for a communist revolution but whatever.
It never ceases to amaze me that people still trot out "fighting the US government" as a reason to own guns. 100% guarantee that all you will accomplish is signing your death warrant, plus whoever else is in the blast area when they bomb/shell your house. If you're that intent on dying a martyr and want to take people out, you're way better off going with some kind of bomb than a gun. These people are living in fantasy land, same with their "stopping an armed intruder" stuff.
|
On February 16 2018 01:42 Mohdoo wrote:
I'm starting to realize that gun nut philosophy is pretty similar to ancient societies. Trump's honoring of the victims made me realize we basically allow these children to be human sacrifices in honor of guns and gun culture. We have so much reverence for guns and the implied masculinity that they bestow on their troubled owners that we knowingly allow these shootings to continue. We are given a choice between gun culture and a bunch of kids living and we always choose the guns. Other countries have "school stabbings", but a few people get slashed and maybe 1 person dies. Since we have extreme reverence for objects that can kill people really quickly, our school violence has 10+ deaths pretty regularly. But then we post "thoughts and prayers", pat ourselves on the back and move on. So we still want them to die, since our only other choice is to get rid of guns. But we also hold these children in high regard and have all sorts of ceremonies in their honor. It's basically just human sacrifice.
Agreed. Never thought of it as human sacrifice but ya I totally agree. As a society we are paying for our right to bear arms in the blood of children. Not to mention all those gun related murders that aren't worth this amount of attention (i.e. Jealous lover quarrels, accidental discharges at home, street level violence). Stalin used to say one death is a tragedy, a thousand is just statistics. Here, it's the reverse. One death isn't news worthy, we need 10+ dead children in order to get anyone talking about this shit.
I'm definitely in favor of very strict regulations for all types of fire arms and preferably would choose to ban all fire arms our right. Problem is, I think the sheer quantity of guns has gotten out of hand and a simple proscription I don't think would work. In the end, this is a cultural problem. In the end, it's how we got a 19 year old who legally purchased a fucking AR-15 in south Florida. It's just a crying shame.
|
It bears worth mentioning that firearm turn-in or buy-out programs are already used in some urban areas and could be expanded without much cost or hassle.
|
On February 16 2018 04:21 farvacola wrote:
It bears worth mentioning that firearm turn-in or buy-out programs are already used in some urban areas and could be expanded without much cost or hassle.
That's cool didn't know that. Then again I just think about the typical American psycho (we all know one) who'd say you can pry my gun from my cold, dead hands. This is what I mean when it's a cultural disease. I have many friends that are gun nuts and it's too deeply embedded in them to think otherwise. Look at Cruz, everyone describes him as a gun, knife and hunting nut. He'd posts pics on social media with a pistol next to his face and stupid shit like that to make him seem tough. How many other assholes are there in America who think themselves mini James bonds. I'd argue in fact that they're looking for any excuse to go full license to kill.
Like the saying goes, play with matches and you'll get burned. Play with guns and you'll likely kill something and if you're a psychopath you'll shoot up a crowded public area.
|
On February 16 2018 03:32 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2018 01:42 Mohdoo wrote:
I'm starting to realize that gun nut philosophy is pretty similar to ancient societies. Trump's honoring of the victims made me realize we basically allow these children to be human sacrifices in honor of guns and gun culture. We have so much reverence for guns and the implied masculinity that they bestow on their troubled owners that we knowingly allow these shootings to continue. We are given a choice between gun culture and a bunch of kids living and we always choose the guns. Other countries have "school stabbings", but a few people get slashed and maybe 1 person dies. Since we have extreme reverence for objects that can kill people really quickly, our school violence has 10+ deaths pretty regularly. But then we post "thoughts and prayers", pat ourselves on the back and move on. So we still want them to die, since our only other choice is to get rid of guns. But we also hold these children in high regard and have all sorts of ceremonies in their honor. It's basically just human sacrifice. Glad I am not the only one finding it beyond creepy to "honour" the victims of a school shooting. These types of "honour" are normally reserved for those who die in the service of their country. To give social status to those who have chosen to risk their lives. In essence it is a declaration that your society finds their deaths are a worthwhile sacrifice.
I also find this incredibly disturbing. No offense to those children, but unless any of them shielded people with their bodies, they didn't do anything worthy of honoring. They got shot by someone who probably shouldn't have had access to any gun, especially the one he had. The only honor there is the honor of being sacrificed on the altar of America's inability to have a sane level of control over guns within its borders.
|
It seems like this default language use in preformative grieving and people using it are not really thinking about the context or what “honoring” means.
|
Is it normal to "honour" the victims of common crimes in USA? I've never heard "honour" used in conjuction with the victims of crime in a public ceremony, ever. The language used appears consistent with the language of elevating social standing to their deaths.
|
“Honor their memory” is a really common phrase and not received for service members. But it seems out of place in a public discussion about a mass shooting and the victims. It is to “intimate” a phrase.
|
On February 16 2018 03:30 Chewbacca. wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2018 01:20 Broetchenholer wrote:On February 15 2018 10:19 Chewbacca. wrote:On February 15 2018 10:03 Ayaz2810 wrote:On February 15 2018 09:50 micronesia wrote:On February 15 2018 09:46 Ayaz2810 wrote:
Americans treat guns like toys. The fact that devices explicitly made to kill are used for "fun" is fucking stupid. You wanna shoot at a range? Check a gun out and return it when you're done. You wanna hunt? Pass a Japan-level background check to prove your capable. What is a japan-level background check? I can guess from context but I'm curious what that entails. I take issue with the 'keep your gun at the range' policy, but I would support common sense protections for people who shouldn't be getting their hands on guns from being able to buy them. Right now the system is clearly insufficient even if you generally support private gun ownership (in my opinion). The 2nd amendment is retarded. Was it always? If not, when did it become 'retarded'? https://kotaku.com/legally-owning-a-gun-in-japan-is-really-really-hard-1479865283It became retarded when muskets were no longer the weapon of choice. Or maybe when tanks were invented. There are plenty of points in American history at which "fighting the tyrannical government" became a laughable option. Maintaining a weapon for self defense is moot if the attacker also has no gun. And you stand no chance against the military should the unthinkable happen. It's just outdated and doesn't need to exist. Being able to fight off the government is only one of many reasons that people want to be able to own a gun. If I wake up in the middle of the night to find someone in my house with a knife robbing me or trying to rape/murder a family member, I want to have the easiest method available to me to kill him before harm is done to myself or my family. Some people want guns to protect themselves from the government, some want them to protect themselves from other people, some want them to hunt, and some want them because they enjoy shooting Okay, you want the easiest way to kill someone to rob you with a knife. Might i suggest a proximity mine? Just put one at every window and door and wait for the knifeholder to make your day. What about orbital guided artillery, missile strikes on anyone stepping on your lawn might be a good solution as well or maybe some deadly gas? Because your right to take someones life shall not be infringed upon by common sense or proportionate responses. If you need weapons to protect yourself from the government, you either are a criminal or it's too late. There is no scenario were you are morally allowed to shoot government agents and have a chance to actually achieve anything by shooting government agents. Either your government is not oppressing you enough to warrant you murdering it's officials or it is oppressing you so much that you need to shoot back and will fail. I would love to know the scenario where a handgun is needed to defend from the government. Sportshooting and hunting. Okay, i allow you that, i am in a good mood, you are just not allowed to buy the weapon for sportshooting, you get it at the range and you give it back when you are done. For SPorts you are allowed hunting rifles. Actual hunting rifles. No Scopes, no semi automatic capabilities. You need a hunting permit, have to go to seminars every x years and pass a test. You can't buy unlimited bullets. So, nobody needs a gun anymore, right? Yeah because planting proximity mines, setting up orbital guided artillery, or booby trapping your house with deadly gas is much easier than having a handgun next to your bed. I 100% believe that shooting someone who is breaking into your house to harm you, even if they're only coming at you with a knife or metal pipe, is perfectly warranted, and is the common sense approach. My safety, let alone my life, is worth more to me than the life of a criminal trying to harm me. If your government is oppressing you enough that it warrants you to shoot back, even if it means you will fail, I think most people would like the option to fight back rather than living under the oppressive governmental rule. Case in point, every revolution in history.
Times have changed some. Back when it was musket vs musket, the rules (2nd amendment) made some sense.
At this point, you are proposing a gun vs. Drones/Tanks/Bombs/Missles etc etc etc. Your weapon will not help you in a fight against the government.
|
On February 16 2018 06:38 Aveng3r wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2018 03:30 Chewbacca. wrote:On February 16 2018 01:20 Broetchenholer wrote:On February 15 2018 10:19 Chewbacca. wrote:On February 15 2018 10:03 Ayaz2810 wrote:On February 15 2018 09:50 micronesia wrote:On February 15 2018 09:46 Ayaz2810 wrote:
Americans treat guns like toys. The fact that devices explicitly made to kill are used for "fun" is fucking stupid. You wanna shoot at a range? Check a gun out and return it when you're done. You wanna hunt? Pass a Japan-level background check to prove your capable. What is a japan-level background check? I can guess from context but I'm curious what that entails. I take issue with the 'keep your gun at the range' policy, but I would support common sense protections for people who shouldn't be getting their hands on guns from being able to buy them. Right now the system is clearly insufficient even if you generally support private gun ownership (in my opinion). The 2nd amendment is retarded. Was it always? If not, when did it become 'retarded'? https://kotaku.com/legally-owning-a-gun-in-japan-is-really-really-hard-1479865283It became retarded when muskets were no longer the weapon of choice. Or maybe when tanks were invented. There are plenty of points in American history at which "fighting the tyrannical government" became a laughable option. Maintaining a weapon for self defense is moot if the attacker also has no gun. And you stand no chance against the military should the unthinkable happen. It's just outdated and doesn't need to exist. Being able to fight off the government is only one of many reasons that people want to be able to own a gun. If I wake up in the middle of the night to find someone in my house with a knife robbing me or trying to rape/murder a family member, I want to have the easiest method available to me to kill him before harm is done to myself or my family. Some people want guns to protect themselves from the government, some want them to protect themselves from other people, some want them to hunt, and some want them because they enjoy shooting Okay, you want the easiest way to kill someone to rob you with a knife. Might i suggest a proximity mine? Just put one at every window and door and wait for the knifeholder to make your day. What about orbital guided artillery, missile strikes on anyone stepping on your lawn might be a good solution as well or maybe some deadly gas? Because your right to take someones life shall not be infringed upon by common sense or proportionate responses. If you need weapons to protect yourself from the government, you either are a criminal or it's too late. There is no scenario were you are morally allowed to shoot government agents and have a chance to actually achieve anything by shooting government agents. Either your government is not oppressing you enough to warrant you murdering it's officials or it is oppressing you so much that you need to shoot back and will fail. I would love to know the scenario where a handgun is needed to defend from the government. Sportshooting and hunting. Okay, i allow you that, i am in a good mood, you are just not allowed to buy the weapon for sportshooting, you get it at the range and you give it back when you are done. For SPorts you are allowed hunting rifles. Actual hunting rifles. No Scopes, no semi automatic capabilities. You need a hunting permit, have to go to seminars every x years and pass a test. You can't buy unlimited bullets. So, nobody needs a gun anymore, right? Yeah because planting proximity mines, setting up orbital guided artillery, or booby trapping your house with deadly gas is much easier than having a handgun next to your bed. I 100% believe that shooting someone who is breaking into your house to harm you, even if they're only coming at you with a knife or metal pipe, is perfectly warranted, and is the common sense approach. My safety, let alone my life, is worth more to me than the life of a criminal trying to harm me. If your government is oppressing you enough that it warrants you to shoot back, even if it means you will fail, I think most people would like the option to fight back rather than living under the oppressive governmental rule. Case in point, every revolution in history. Times have changed some. Back when it was musket vs musket, the rules (2nd amendment) made some sense. At this point, you are proposing a gun vs. Drones/Tanks/Bombs/Missles etc etc etc. Your weapon will not help you in a fight against the government.
I mean nobody really thinks that there is going to need to be an armed uprising in the near future, but since I'm going at this just for the sake of the argument....In a hypothetical situation where it turns into the US population versus the government, people like to bring up the fact that it would be guns versus tanks/bombs/missiles, etc.
1) It would be against the governments interest to use massive weaponry on it's own cities as it would be destroying its own infrastructure. I could only really imagine the government bombing its own cities unless there was actually fear that it would lose to the armed population, which as you pointed out is a little silly.
2) People seem to forget that while yes, bombers/tanks are operated by the government (military), your average US soldier isn't a government stooge. If it ever actually came down to a full out US citizens vs governmental elite, it is quite likely that US soldiers would be fighting alongside the citizens with those tanks/bombers, not against them.
|
On February 16 2018 04:21 farvacola wrote:
It bears worth mentioning that firearm turn-in or buy-out programs are already used in some urban areas and could be expanded without much cost or hassle.
Buy out programs don't have a significant effect on gun violence. It mostly pays out people who have guns but didn't intend on using them (mostly inherited guns) or old recreational use weapons. All in all, they are popular because it looks like politicians are doing something, but it's just giving a lot of money to people without doing much to fix the problem (which some may argue isn't a bad thing anyways).
|
On February 16 2018 06:38 Aveng3r wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2018 03:30 Chewbacca. wrote:On February 16 2018 01:20 Broetchenholer wrote:On February 15 2018 10:19 Chewbacca. wrote:On February 15 2018 10:03 Ayaz2810 wrote:On February 15 2018 09:50 micronesia wrote:On February 15 2018 09:46 Ayaz2810 wrote:
Americans treat guns like toys. The fact that devices explicitly made to kill are used for "fun" is fucking stupid. You wanna shoot at a range? Check a gun out and return it when you're done. You wanna hunt? Pass a Japan-level background check to prove your capable. What is a japan-level background check? I can guess from context but I'm curious what that entails. I take issue with the 'keep your gun at the range' policy, but I would support common sense protections for people who shouldn't be getting their hands on guns from being able to buy them. Right now the system is clearly insufficient even if you generally support private gun ownership (in my opinion). The 2nd amendment is retarded. Was it always? If not, when did it become 'retarded'? https://kotaku.com/legally-owning-a-gun-in-japan-is-really-really-hard-1479865283It became retarded when muskets were no longer the weapon of choice. Or maybe when tanks were invented. There are plenty of points in American history at which "fighting the tyrannical government" became a laughable option. Maintaining a weapon for self defense is moot if the attacker also has no gun. And you stand no chance against the military should the unthinkable happen. It's just outdated and doesn't need to exist. Being able to fight off the government is only one of many reasons that people want to be able to own a gun. If I wake up in the middle of the night to find someone in my house with a knife robbing me or trying to rape/murder a family member, I want to have the easiest method available to me to kill him before harm is done to myself or my family. Some people want guns to protect themselves from the government, some want them to protect themselves from other people, some want them to hunt, and some want them because they enjoy shooting Okay, you want the easiest way to kill someone to rob you with a knife. Might i suggest a proximity mine? Just put one at every window and door and wait for the knifeholder to make your day. What about orbital guided artillery, missile strikes on anyone stepping on your lawn might be a good solution as well or maybe some deadly gas? Because your right to take someones life shall not be infringed upon by common sense or proportionate responses. If you need weapons to protect yourself from the government, you either are a criminal or it's too late. There is no scenario were you are morally allowed to shoot government agents and have a chance to actually achieve anything by shooting government agents. Either your government is not oppressing you enough to warrant you murdering it's officials or it is oppressing you so much that you need to shoot back and will fail. I would love to know the scenario where a handgun is needed to defend from the government. Sportshooting and hunting. Okay, i allow you that, i am in a good mood, you are just not allowed to buy the weapon for sportshooting, you get it at the range and you give it back when you are done. For SPorts you are allowed hunting rifles. Actual hunting rifles. No Scopes, no semi automatic capabilities. You need a hunting permit, have to go to seminars every x years and pass a test. You can't buy unlimited bullets. So, nobody needs a gun anymore, right? Yeah because planting proximity mines, setting up orbital guided artillery, or booby trapping your house with deadly gas is much easier than having a handgun next to your bed. I 100% believe that shooting someone who is breaking into your house to harm you, even if they're only coming at you with a knife or metal pipe, is perfectly warranted, and is the common sense approach. My safety, let alone my life, is worth more to me than the life of a criminal trying to harm me. If your government is oppressing you enough that it warrants you to shoot back, even if it means you will fail, I think most people would like the option to fight back rather than living under the oppressive governmental rule. Case in point, every revolution in history. Times have changed some. Back when it was musket vs musket, the rules (2nd amendment) made some sense. At this point, you are proposing a gun vs. Drones/Tanks/Bombs/Missles etc etc etc. Your weapon will not help you in a fight against the government.
I feel it's even more ridiculous than that. An oppressive government wouldn't use "force" to control the population anyway. They'd use Tv stations and facebook (or whatever equivalent) instead of weapons, they'd use the humongous intelligence surveillance apparatus and it's agents instead of soldiers. The entire 2nd amendment thing is so blatantly obsolete I'm having a very hard time not seeing it's proponents as "gun nuts" willing to excuse any "sacrifices" for their fetish.
edit: forgot to add that afaik the 2nd amendment never explicitly names the purpose of the "well armed militia". So the "oppressive government" reasoning isn't even necessarily what the founders had in mind, particularly when considering the context of the revolutionary war where such a militia actually fought a foreign entity (granted that could be construed as the british being such a government for the colonies at the time too).
|
The biggest problem with the whole defense against the government scenario is of course that in almost all of the cases where the US government would actually turn autoritarian, it would be a far right autoritarianism, and it would happen amidst the cheers of a bunch of the gun enthusiasts who fear it so much.
|
United States24670 Posts
On February 15 2018 20:51 evilfatsh1t wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2018 20:39 micronesia wrote:On February 15 2018 13:51 evilfatsh1t wrote:On February 15 2018 10:21 micronesia wrote:I agree with the problems with limiting government study of the current problems. On February 15 2018 10:03 Ayaz2810 wrote:On February 15 2018 09:50 micronesia wrote:On February 15 2018 09:46 Ayaz2810 wrote:
Americans treat guns like toys. The fact that devices explicitly made to kill are used for "fun" is fucking stupid. You wanna shoot at a range? Check a gun out and return it when you're done. You wanna hunt? Pass a Japan-level background check to prove your capable. What is a japan-level background check? I can guess from context but I'm curious what that entails. I take issue with the 'keep your gun at the range' policy, but I would support common sense protections for people who shouldn't be getting their hands on guns from being able to buy them. Right now the system is clearly insufficient even if you generally support private gun ownership (in my opinion). The 2nd amendment is retarded. Was it always? If not, when did it become 'retarded'? https://kotaku.com/legally-owning-a-gun-in-japan-is-really-really-hard-1479865283］ Ah ok, that was helpful, thanks. Personally, I don't agree with having a system for getting a gun permit where it's intentionally designed to be infuriatingly difficult to get through with lots of hoops you have to jump through for the sake of it. Requiring multiple reasonable measures to prove you aren't some moron who is about to go abuse your gun is fine, though (and many places certainly don't have that). It became retarded when muskets were no longer the weapon of choice. Or maybe when tanks were invented. There are plenty of points in American history at which "fighting the tyrannical government" became a laughable option.
...
And you stand no chance against the military should the unthinkable happen. It's just outdated and doesn't need to exist. Why do you assume this? I agree, it's less likely an armed population is going to accomplish what the framers were thinking, but it's far from impossible. If you are envisioning a conflict with the population of US city X against the US Army, and the Army begins the conflict by carpet bombing the entirety of US city X, then yes, in that extreme example, gun ownership bought the people little in beating back the oppressive government. But if, at the other extreme, the government starts rounding up all the people in an area to send to concentration camps, it becomes much harder to deal with all the resistance if everyone is armed. It is hard to predict what form the government could take that would motivate the people to bear arms. You may think you have more insight into this than others, but I still wouldn't throw the word 'retarded' around. Maintaining a weapon for self defense is moot if the attacker also has no gun. What do you mean its moot? A competent person with a bat or a knife or something can easily take out an equally armed homeowner or dweller. I'm not necessarily defending gun ownership for home defense, but I also don't accept your absolute argument here. its evident here that the entire perception of "self defense" by americans is another factor in gun control regulations. you clearly didnt understand that by wielding a gun against an attacker without a gun, you are no longer just "defending" yourself. you have the means to inflict much more damage to the attacker than he does to you. strictly speaking defense is just putting yourself out of harms way; it doesnt necessarily require you to maim your opponent to do so. the fact that americans think that its perfectly fine to injure/kill an opponent under the cover of "self defense" shows why gun control is not just an issue of regulations, but a problem with the mentality of american people in general If a person I don't know, with a machete, is running at me, in my bedroom, with the intent to chop my head off, is it really fair to say that I, carrying a handgun, have the means to inflict much more damage to the attacker than he does to me? I would totally agree that folks who think they have the 'right' to gun down someone trying to sneak a tv out their backdoor have this really bad perception you are referring to, but I don't agree with your overly narrow definition of defense. edit: I find it interesting that 'when the second amendment became "retarded"' has a completely different answer depending on who you ask. edit2 to below: I stopped reading after "Except it actually is retarded, who gives a shit if it's PC or not." actually its not just my narrow definition of defense. australia's self defense laws are like so and i dont believe people in australia heavily disagree with that. also even in your machete scenario, yes you do have the means to inflict more damage. if you are using the word "means" synonymously with "intent" and are arguing that because you lack intent you do not have the means then the question would be, why bother having a gun at all?
Self defense laws and defending yourself are two different things. I obviously haven't studied Australian self defense laws, but you didn't say "claiming self defense would be an insufficient defense in Australian courts in that scenario." You said "by wielding a gun against an attacker without a gun, you are no longer just 'defending' yourself." I did not agree with the statement overall, even though in many specific cases it may be true. I went on to give an example, and you made the claim that I have the means to inflict more damage than the person trying to decapitate me with a machete. That seems very strange to me. What is more damaging to a person than removing their head? I suppose turning someone into swiss cheese theoretically reduces their ability to donate their organs, but that's hardly significant in this context. And no, I was not discussing intent, just physical capability given the weapons being held.
On February 15 2018 23:07 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2018 20:39 micronesia wrote:On February 15 2018 13:51 evilfatsh1t wrote:On February 15 2018 10:21 micronesia wrote:I agree with the problems with limiting government study of the current problems. On February 15 2018 10:03 Ayaz2810 wrote:On February 15 2018 09:50 micronesia wrote:On February 15 2018 09:46 Ayaz2810 wrote:
Americans treat guns like toys. The fact that devices explicitly made to kill are used for "fun" is fucking stupid. You wanna shoot at a range? Check a gun out and return it when you're done. You wanna hunt? Pass a Japan-level background check to prove your capable. What is a japan-level background check? I can guess from context but I'm curious what that entails. I take issue with the 'keep your gun at the range' policy, but I would support common sense protections for people who shouldn't be getting their hands on guns from being able to buy them. Right now the system is clearly insufficient even if you generally support private gun ownership (in my opinion). The 2nd amendment is retarded. Was it always? If not, when did it become 'retarded'? https://kotaku.com/legally-owning-a-gun-in-japan-is-really-really-hard-1479865283］ Ah ok, that was helpful, thanks. Personally, I don't agree with having a system for getting a gun permit where it's intentionally designed to be infuriatingly difficult to get through with lots of hoops you have to jump through for the sake of it. Requiring multiple reasonable measures to prove you aren't some moron who is about to go abuse your gun is fine, though (and many places certainly don't have that). It became retarded when muskets were no longer the weapon of choice. Or maybe when tanks were invented. There are plenty of points in American history at which "fighting the tyrannical government" became a laughable option.
...
And you stand no chance against the military should the unthinkable happen. It's just outdated and doesn't need to exist. Why do you assume this? I agree, it's less likely an armed population is going to accomplish what the framers were thinking, but it's far from impossible. If you are envisioning a conflict with the population of US city X against the US Army, and the Army begins the conflict by carpet bombing the entirety of US city X, then yes, in that extreme example, gun ownership bought the people little in beating back the oppressive government. But if, at the other extreme, the government starts rounding up all the people in an area to send to concentration camps, it becomes much harder to deal with all the resistance if everyone is armed. It is hard to predict what form the government could take that would motivate the people to bear arms. You may think you have more insight into this than others, but I still wouldn't throw the word 'retarded' around. Maintaining a weapon for self defense is moot if the attacker also has no gun. What do you mean its moot? A competent person with a bat or a knife or something can easily take out an equally armed homeowner or dweller. I'm not necessarily defending gun ownership for home defense, but I also don't accept your absolute argument here. its evident here that the entire perception of "self defense" by americans is another factor in gun control regulations. you clearly didnt understand that by wielding a gun against an attacker without a gun, you are no longer just "defending" yourself. you have the means to inflict much more damage to the attacker than he does to you. strictly speaking defense is just putting yourself out of harms way; it doesnt necessarily require you to maim your opponent to do so. the fact that americans think that its perfectly fine to injure/kill an opponent under the cover of "self defense" shows why gun control is not just an issue of regulations, but a problem with the mentality of american people in general If a person I don't know, with a machete, is running at me, in my bedroom, with the intent to chop my head off, is it really fair to say that I, carrying a handgun, have the means to inflict much more damage to the attacker than he does to me? I would totally agree that folks who think they have the 'right' to gun down someone trying to sneak a tv out their backdoor have this really bad perception you are referring to, but I don't agree with your overly narrow definition of defense. edit: I find it interesting that 'when the second amendment became "retarded"' has a completely different answer depending on who you ask. edit2 to below: I stopped reading after "Except it actually is retarded, who gives a shit if it's PC or not." what if you found yourself on the top of a building and this man, wielding 200 lbs of body mass, was charging at you with the intent to take you off the ledge? there are a lot of hypotheticals that serve as a beautiful distraction, meanwhile those 17 kids weren’t fighting off a hypothetical machete wielding psycho. they should’ve been so lucky. to bring that particular hypothetical to life, do you imagine the people in his school would’ve preferred Cruz brought a machete to bear or a gun? What does this have to do with what I said? As discussed above, I provided a counterexample to a questionable claim. I did not make a general statement that shooting schoolchildren is preferable to attacking them machetes or anything similar.
i for one am more than happy to sacrifice as much of my hypothetical safety as possible to affect real world safety. my thoughts and prayers are for all the others that have yet to make this bold decision. What else are you sacrificing besides your hypothetical safety in a scenario where civilian gun use is essentially eliminated? If the answer is 'basically nothing' then you need to do a better job of putting yourself into the shoes of others, understanding their position (even if you don't agree with it), and then argue why they should be willing to make the sacrifice. As someone who has never played lacrosse, nobody would give a crap if I pronounced that I am more than willing to outlaw lacrosse if I expected there to be a tangible benefit. However, if I could make a convincing argument that even lacrosse players should be willing to make that sacrifice, then perhaps I accomplished something. The problem I see, including frequently in this thread, is the people arguing most vehemently for wide-scale gun bans in the US actually do not seem to understand the reasons why many people don't want that and then wonder why such a seemingly obvious choice is being made incorrectly.
it makes me giddy to consider a world where guns are illegal for civilians. I mean, if that's what you think is best, that's your right to have that opinion. But just be warned that statements like these send the message that any attempt to enact even popular common sense gun laws is a few progressive steps away from a full gun ban. That message gives the NRA more power than anything else when it comes to blocking new legislation directly or indirectly.
|
On February 16 2018 03:08 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2018 03:00 Doodsmack wrote:On February 15 2018 10:19 Chewbacca. wrote:On February 15 2018 10:03 Ayaz2810 wrote:On February 15 2018 09:50 micronesia wrote:On February 15 2018 09:46 Ayaz2810 wrote:
Americans treat guns like toys. The fact that devices explicitly made to kill are used for "fun" is fucking stupid. You wanna shoot at a range? Check a gun out and return it when you're done. You wanna hunt? Pass a Japan-level background check to prove your capable. What is a japan-level background check? I can guess from context but I'm curious what that entails. I take issue with the 'keep your gun at the range' policy, but I would support common sense protections for people who shouldn't be getting their hands on guns from being able to buy them. Right now the system is clearly insufficient even if you generally support private gun ownership (in my opinion). The 2nd amendment is retarded. Was it always? If not, when did it become 'retarded'? https://kotaku.com/legally-owning-a-gun-in-japan-is-really-really-hard-1479865283It became retarded when muskets were no longer the weapon of choice. Or maybe when tanks were invented. There are plenty of points in American history at which "fighting the tyrannical government" became a laughable option. Maintaining a weapon for self defense is moot if the attacker also has no gun. And you stand no chance against the military should the unthinkable happen. It's just outdated and doesn't need to exist. Being able to fight off the government is only one of many reasons that people want to be able to own a gun. If I wake up in the middle of the night to find someone in my house with a knife robbing me or trying to rape/murder a family member, I want to have the easiest method available to me to kill him before harm is done to myself or my family. Some people want guns to protect themselves from the government, some want them to protect themselves from other people, some want them to hunt, and some want them because they enjoy shooting The 2nd amendment doesn't say "people can choose any reason they want to have a gun." Do you not respect the Constitution? Can you not post like this? His argument is completely valid on teh subject of self defense. But the debate right now has nothing to do with lawful, long term gun ownership. It is that a small minority of the population wants instant access to all fire arms and cannot tolerate any delay in obtaining them. And because that minority has powerful political sway though the gun lobby, gun safety laws are not enforced or sufficient to stop what happened yesterday. The garbage, hyperbolic debate you are trying to engage with has little to do with the problems we face right now.
I see no reason to believe that he was talking about a small minority rather than lawful long term ownership.
|
On February 16 2018 06:50 Chewbacca. wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2018 06:38 Aveng3r wrote:On February 16 2018 03:30 Chewbacca. wrote:On February 16 2018 01:20 Broetchenholer wrote:On February 15 2018 10:19 Chewbacca. wrote:On February 15 2018 10:03 Ayaz2810 wrote:On February 15 2018 09:50 micronesia wrote:On February 15 2018 09:46 Ayaz2810 wrote:
Americans treat guns like toys. The fact that devices explicitly made to kill are used for "fun" is fucking stupid. You wanna shoot at a range? Check a gun out and return it when you're done. You wanna hunt? Pass a Japan-level background check to prove your capable. What is a japan-level background check? I can guess from context but I'm curious what that entails. I take issue with the 'keep your gun at the range' policy, but I would support common sense protections for people who shouldn't be getting their hands on guns from being able to buy them. Right now the system is clearly insufficient even if you generally support private gun ownership (in my opinion). The 2nd amendment is retarded. Was it always? If not, when did it become 'retarded'? https://kotaku.com/legally-owning-a-gun-in-japan-is-really-really-hard-1479865283It became retarded when muskets were no longer the weapon of choice. Or maybe when tanks were invented. There are plenty of points in American history at which "fighting the tyrannical government" became a laughable option. Maintaining a weapon for self defense is moot if the attacker also has no gun. And you stand no chance against the military should the unthinkable happen. It's just outdated and doesn't need to exist. Being able to fight off the government is only one of many reasons that people want to be able to own a gun. If I wake up in the middle of the night to find someone in my house with a knife robbing me or trying to rape/murder a family member, I want to have the easiest method available to me to kill him before harm is done to myself or my family. Some people want guns to protect themselves from the government, some want them to protect themselves from other people, some want them to hunt, and some want them because they enjoy shooting Okay, you want the easiest way to kill someone to rob you with a knife. Might i suggest a proximity mine? Just put one at every window and door and wait for the knifeholder to make your day. What about orbital guided artillery, missile strikes on anyone stepping on your lawn might be a good solution as well or maybe some deadly gas? Because your right to take someones life shall not be infringed upon by common sense or proportionate responses. If you need weapons to protect yourself from the government, you either are a criminal or it's too late. There is no scenario were you are morally allowed to shoot government agents and have a chance to actually achieve anything by shooting government agents. Either your government is not oppressing you enough to warrant you murdering it's officials or it is oppressing you so much that you need to shoot back and will fail. I would love to know the scenario where a handgun is needed to defend from the government. Sportshooting and hunting. Okay, i allow you that, i am in a good mood, you are just not allowed to buy the weapon for sportshooting, you get it at the range and you give it back when you are done. For SPorts you are allowed hunting rifles. Actual hunting rifles. No Scopes, no semi automatic capabilities. You need a hunting permit, have to go to seminars every x years and pass a test. You can't buy unlimited bullets. So, nobody needs a gun anymore, right? Yeah because planting proximity mines, setting up orbital guided artillery, or booby trapping your house with deadly gas is much easier than having a handgun next to your bed. I 100% believe that shooting someone who is breaking into your house to harm you, even if they're only coming at you with a knife or metal pipe, is perfectly warranted, and is the common sense approach. My safety, let alone my life, is worth more to me than the life of a criminal trying to harm me. If your government is oppressing you enough that it warrants you to shoot back, even if it means you will fail, I think most people would like the option to fight back rather than living under the oppressive governmental rule. Case in point, every revolution in history. Times have changed some. Back when it was musket vs musket, the rules (2nd amendment) made some sense. At this point, you are proposing a gun vs. Drones/Tanks/Bombs/Missles etc etc etc. Your weapon will not help you in a fight against the government. I mean nobody really thinks that there is going to need to be an armed uprising in the near future, but since I'm going at this just for the sake of the argument....In a hypothetical situation where it turns into the US population versus the government, people like to bring up the fact that it would be guns versus tanks/bombs/missiles, etc. 1) It would be against the governments interest to use massive weaponry on it's own cities as it would be destroying its own infrastructure. I could only really imagine the government bombing its own cities unless there was actually fear that it would lose to the armed population, which as you pointed out is a little silly. 2) People seem to forget that while yes, bombers/tanks are operated by the government (military), your average US soldier isn't a government stooge. If it ever actually came down to a full out US citizens vs governmental elite, it is quite likely that US soldiers would be fighting alongside the citizens with those tanks/bombers, not against them. Well then by your own arguments the value of your guns are worthless against a hypothetical oppressive government. A government cvan only be oppressive because it controls the soldiers and the police. If soldier are with the "citizens" then it is hardly a case of an oppressive governmen when the government cannot control its own military. Then there would be nothing for you guns to be used against. Also for all your talk of "revolution", the most successful revolutions in the past 50 years were peaceful, inIndia, in Taiwan and in South Korea where it was mass peaceful demonstrations which brought about democracy and civil rights against oppressive strongmen. If you truly care about fighting against an oppressive government, then put away your guns and hone your mind first to protect the civil rights of freedom of religion and speech.
Alos it's slightly disturbing that your scenario involves US citizens vs governmental elite, as if those are two distinct groups. If somehow civil rights in US are so reduced that it would come to an armed uprising it would most likely been when the apparatus of the US government has been fully developed to the republican nationalism, that of authoritarianism and total subserviences of the state to the powerful business lobby, the white supramacists against everyone else. That is the only way I can ever see US developing into an oppressive state, a state it is on its way to the fascism that US is currently on the path to becoming.
|
The lengths some of these gun control groups go to in order to construct narratives and fool people is appalling.
|
I don't even see the need for it. There's no point inflating this stuff when such an awful mass shooting just happened. If these kids are just acceptable loss in an ideological battle then making up numbers isn't going to help.
|
Eight is not a small number:
Five of Everytown’s 18 school shootings listed for 2018 happened during school hours and resulted in any physical injury. Three others appeared to be intentional shootings but did not hurt anyone.
I don't see why these should be necessarily excluded just for being after hours:
At least seven of Everytown’s 18 shootings took place outside normal school hours.
And I don't see why "people with the authority to have a gun but not a clue how to handle them" should be reassuring:
Two more involved guns — one carried by a school police officer and the other by a licensed peace officer who ran a college club — that were unintentionally fired and, again, led to no injuries.
|
On February 15 2018 10:07 Plansix wrote:
There is no reasons to even argue that this will impact anything. We have not passed substantive gun laws at the federal level for +20 years. The CDC or any government agency cannot collect data on gun violence. After sandy hook the senate and House didn’t even have a debate about guns or debate a single bill. They didn’t even talk about it. But they did admonish Obama for talking about it. The gun manufacturers lobby, NRA and gun lovers have won for 20 year and there is no sign of that changing in the next ten.
That's because the last time the CDC tried to gather data, they were led by a team of people who were politically motivated to basically institute a full out gun ban. Not to mention that their study and data was severely flawed, and were thoroughly debunked by multiple people.
The NRA wasn't without fault; they definitely went way too far in that it wasn't an outright ban, but it did basically caused the CDC to never touch the subject again. However, don't try and spin it as though the left and the CDC didn't attempt their own political spin on the subject, they were out to basically institute a fullout gun ban which was and still is not feasible for multiple reasons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
