|
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 17 2018 02:45 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2018 02:43 Plansix wrote:On February 17 2018 02:41 superstartran wrote:On February 17 2018 02:40 Simberto wrote:On February 17 2018 02:37 superstartran wrote:On February 17 2018 02:35 Simberto wrote:On February 17 2018 02:25 superstartran wrote:On February 17 2018 02:20 Dangermousecatdog wrote: I'm not sure how someone can argue that better gun controls will reduce school shootings is an emotion from violence. You have a wealth of sources from the other 6 billion people in the world. You don't need to ban guns. In the UK, guns are not illegal. Many farmers still legally own guns, as do sports enthusiasts and hunters. There has been many gun amnesties and people still do smuggle guns and every now and then someone gets accidently shot and so on and so forth, but gun crime has drastically decreased over the periods when gun legislation were passed. You simply cannot obtain one without reason and certainly if you are not sound of mind. So you reduce school shootings to now school bombings or slashings, whatever tool of destruction you want. It still hasn't actually solved the issue. There has also been multiple shootings across the world in countries where there are incredibly strict gun laws, or guns have been virtually all but banned. This is a multi faceted problem that is much tougher to face, and requires a multi faceted solution. Gun control is just one of many things associated with it. No one claims that you can reduce gun violence and/or school shootings to zero. You can, however, reduce them by a lot. Take a look at the statistics i linked previously for example. Yes, sometimes someone will get a gun despite a ban. However, that is a lot harder and a lot rarer than in countries where you can just walk into a shop and buy one, no questions asked. And yes, sometimes people will choose different tools of destruction if they can not get a gun. This alone is already an upgrade, because those different tools are by definition either harder to get or less effective, because if they were not, they would be the tool of choice in the first place. Someone with a knife might kill one person and injure a few more. The same person with a gun can kill dozens. Building bombs is not easy, and getting the stuff needed to build bombs will rather often lead to government intervention, because bombs are not legal to own in basically any place. Just because something does not completely remove a problem does not mean it is not worth doing. Airbags and seatbelts don't completely remove deaths in car accidents, yet we still have them. Because something that helps a bit is better than not doing anything whatsoever. The statistics you listed bear no meaning to the unique situation of the United States of America. You cannot compare a highly homogeneous country like Japan to the United States; the areas where gun violence is most prevalent in the United States also happens to be where gun laws are incredibly strict such as Chicago, Baltimore, etc. As predicted, US exceptionalism. The amazing and best argument. Us is so incredibly exceptional that you simply cannot compare the US to any other country. And by some chance there is not a lot of research into gun violence inside the US, so really, nothing can be done. Are you really going to say that Chicago, Detroit, and Baltimore, which are areas of the United States where gun violence is most prominent are similar to countries like Japan, Great Britain, Australia, and Canada? Get off your high horse bro. All of the cities you listed are near or are in states with very lack gun laws. Chicago bans many fire arms, but a 30 minutes drive will get you across the boarder to unlimited fire arms with no waiting period. If that were true, then the states with lax gun laws would also have massive issues with fire arm related violence, which statistically is untrue. It is true. The 40 % of fire arms seized in Chicago came from Illinois. The rest are obtainabled by surrounding gates with lower populations and lax gun laws. Criminals seek out states with lax gun laws to acquire guns and then bring them to highly populated cities with stronger gun laws.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/11/07/where-the-guns-used-in-chicago-actually-came-from/?utm_term=.0c65af3cdebb
|
On February 17 2018 02:50 Velr wrote: Your school shootings are done by white kids, try again.
The vast majority of firearm homicides (as in murders) are committed in the Mississippi Delta area. A very large number of those homicides are committed by blacks, as well as blacks in urban areas. But you don't see me jumping to conclusions do you?
Mass shootings make up less than 1% of firearm related deaths.
|
How does that make my statement untrue?
Ypu accept your children beong shot in school because freedom. Its disgusting.
|
And then people wonder why the NRA gets support lmao.
|
I'm going to try and put some stats here although please be aware I don't know too much about gun legislation and what it means so I'm not even sure what these stats will mean. They are taken from wikipedia. Murder rates are from official FBI statistics. I'm aware that this present a simplified picture but there's been very few attempts at actually enlightening this discussion with statistics so why not?
2016 Top 5 murder rates by state across the US (per 100,000) : Louisiana - 11.8 Missouri - 8.8 Alabama - 8.4 Illinois - 8.2 Maryland - 8.0
Gun control laws in these states: Louisiana
+ Show Spoiler +Louisiana is a "shall issue" state for concealed carry. The Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections shall issue a concealed handgun permit to qualified applicants, after performing an NICS background check and giving the local police 10 days to provide additional information about the applicant. An applicant must demonstrate handgun proficiency by taking a training course from an approved instructor, or by having been trained while serving in the military. Concealed carry is not permitted in any portion of the permitted area of an establishment that has been granted a class A-General retail permit, to sell alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, or in any place of worship, government meeting place, courthouse, police station, polling place, parade, or in certain other locations.[3][4][5]
Open carry of firearms in Louisiana is permitted without a permit, as long as the user is of at least 17 years of age and legally able to possess a firearm under state and federal law.[6]
Louisiana has state preemption of firearms laws, except for local laws passed before July 15, 1985. Government bodies other than the state may not sue firearms manufacturers, dealers, or trade associations for damages that are the result of lawful activities.
Missouri
+ Show Spoiler +Missouri Statute 571.070 (8/28/2007) says that it is unlawful for a felon or adjudged incompetent Person to have possession of any firearm (including concealable firearms). Violation of this law is a class D felony.[5] This law was the subject of a challenge, in which a nonviolent felon successfully argued that the law is unconstitutional as applied to him. The law failed muster against the required strict scrutiny test.[6][7] However, the law was found to be constitutional by the Supreme Court of Missouri.[8]
Missouri law exempts the possession of antique firearms, as defined in 18 U.S.C. Section 921, from the provision that specifies a person commits the crime of unlawful possession of a firearm if he or she is a convicted felon possessing a firearm.[5]
Missouri Statute 571.121 (8/28/2007) says that: (a) You have to carry your permit with you when you carry the concealed weapon, and if you don't have it with you, it is not a crime, but you can be fined up to $35; and that (b) County sheriffs issue a state CCW I.D. that reflects that you can carry concealed.[9]
In September 2014, Missouri lawmakers passed SB 656 allowing specially trained school employees to carry concealed guns on campuses. It also allows anyone with a concealed weapons permit to carry guns openly in cities or towns with bans against the open carrying of firearms. The age to obtain a concealed weapons permit was also dropped from 21 to 19 [See 2014 Senate Bill 656]. Missouri became the 10th state to pass legislation allowing armed school employees since the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, in 2012.[10] The bill was initially vetoed by Gov. Nixon, but the Missouri legislature overrode the veto during the September veto session.[11]
In September 2016, another Senate bill coincidentally numbered SB 656 was passed allowing permitless concealed carry by anyone 19[12][13] years of age or older who may lawfully own a gun. This bill was also vetoed by Governor Nixon, on June 27, 2016. After the Missouri legislature reconvened for the veto-override session on September 14, 2016, the Senate voted to override the veto with a 24 – 6 vote (23 required) and the House followed through shortly thereafter with a 112 – 41 vote (109 required). The permitless carry provision of the bill went into effect on January 1, 2017.[3]
Alabama + Show Spoiler + The Constitution of Alabama provides that every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the State. The State preempts local regulation of firearms. The firearm preemption statute reads "The purpose of this section is to establish within the Legislature complete control over regulation and policy pertaining to firearms, ammunition, and firearm accessories in order to ensure that such regulation and policy is applied uniformly throughout this state to each person subject to the state's jurisdiction and to ensure protection of the right to keep and bear arms recognized by the Constitutions of the State of Alabama and the United States." Localities may regulate the discharge of firearms and levy taxes.[1][2] On April 21, 2010, Gov. Bob Riley signed House Bill 2 into law as Act 2010-496 amending Ala. §13A-11-63, to allow civilian ownership of short-barrel rifles and short-barrel shotguns, as allowed by federal law.[5] The only firearms known to be prohibited are those disguised as walking canes.
Licensed dealers are required to process background checks through the FBI prior to completing a sale. Licensed dealers must keep a record of every handgun sold, including the purchaser's signature and particular information about the firearm being sold. Private sales of handguns and long guns are legal and no background check is required; however, it is unlawful to sell a firearm to a prohibited person.[1][2]
Firearms are prohibited from certain places, including demonstrations. Possession of firearms is prohibited on the premises of public schools by persons with intent to do bodily harm and those who do not have an Alabama Pistol Permit. Open carry on foot is generally allowed without a license, withstanding other applicable laws. As of Aug. 1, 2013, transportation of an unloaded handgun in a vehicle is allowed without an Alabama Pistol Permit if you are legally permitted to possess the handgun, and the handgun is locked away from immediate reach of all passengers. Carrying a handgun on premises that are not owned or under the control of the possessor is prohibited unless the person has a valid concealed handgun license.[1][2]
Illinois:
+ Show Spoiler + Gun laws in Illinois regulate the sale, possession, and use of firearms and ammunition in the state of Illinois in the United States.[1][2]
To legally possess firearms or ammunition, Illinois residents must have a Firearm Owners Identification (FOID) card, which is issued by the Illinois State Police to any qualified applicant. Non-residents who may legally possess firearms in their home state are exempt from this requirement.
The state police issue licenses for the concealed carry of handguns to qualified applicants age 21 or older who pass a 16-hour training course. However, any law enforcement agency can object to an individual being granted a license "based upon a reasonable suspicion that the applicant is a danger to himself or herself or others, or a threat to public safety". Objections are considered by a Concealed Carry Licensing Review Board, which decides whether or not the license will be issued, based on "a preponderance of the evidence". Licenses issued by other states are not recognized, except for carry in a vehicle. Open carry is prohibited in most areas. When a firearm is being transported by a person without a concealed carry license, it must be unloaded and enclosed in a case, or broken down in a non-functioning state, or not immediately accessible.
There is a waiting period to take possession after purchasing a firearm — 72 hours for a handgun, or 24 hours for a rifle or shotgun. For private sales, the seller must verify the buyer's FOID card, and keep a record of the sale for at least 10 years. Lost or stolen guns must be reported to the police. Possession of automatic firearms, short-barreled shotguns, or suppressors is prohibited. Possession of short-barreled rifles is permitted only for those who have an ATF Curios and Relics license or are a member of a military reenactment group. The state does not restrict the sale or possession of firearms that have been defined as assault weapons, or of magazines that can hold more than a certain number of rounds of ammunition, but some local jurisdictions do restrict them.
Illinois has state preemption for certain areas of gun law, which overrides the home rule guideline in those cases. Some local governments have enacted ordinances that are more restrictive than those of the state in areas not covered by state preemption.
Maryland
+ Show Spoiler +On April 4, 2013, the Maryland General Assembly approved legislation imposing significant new restrictions on gun ownership. The bills ban the sale of certain semi-automatic firearms that they define as assault weapons, limit magazine capacity to ten rounds, require that handgun purchasers be fingerprinted and pass a training class in order to obtain a handgun license, and bar persons who have been involuntarily committed to a mental health institution from possessing firearms. Martin O'Malley Governor at the time, signed the legislation into law on May 16, 2013.[13] Regarding ten round magazine limits for rifles purchased in Maryland, 'standard' 30 round magazines may be purchased outside Maryland and brought into the state for personal use. Those standard magazines may not be transferred, given, sold or manufactured inside Maryland.[14]
As of October 1, 2013, detachable magazines for semi-automatic handguns and semi-automatic centerfire rifles which are capable of holding more than 10 rounds may not be purchased, manufactured or sold, though they may be possessed (but not transferred within the state) by persons who already owned them prior to enactment of the 2013 changes. Magazines greater than ten (10) rounds may be purchased or acquired outside the state and carried into Maryland and used within the state. Certain pistols are classified as "assault pistols", and banned from ownership if not registered prior to August 1, 1994.[2] Only handguns on the official handgun roster[15] may be sold in the state. Private sales of "regulated firearms," which includes handguns, are permissible, but must be done at a local Maryland State Police barracks. As of 1 Oct, a Handgun Qualification License (HQL) is required for the sale, as well as a background check and a mandatory seven-day waiting period. A person must obtain a safety training certificate prior to purchasing "regulated firearms" and present that certificate prior to each purchase. With some limited exceptions,[16] only one "regulated firearm" may be purchased in any 30-day period. Handguns manufactured on or before December 31, 2002 must be sold or transferred with an external safety lock. Handguns manufactured after December 31, 2002 may only be sold or transferred if they have an internal mechanical safety device.[3][4]
Firearms advocates challenged the 2013 law. The District Court ruled that the law was constitutional based on intermediate scrutiny. On February 1, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit overruled the reasoning used to uphold the law in a 2-to-1 vote. The appellate court said that the ban on semi-automatic weapons and high-capacity magazines should be subject to strict scrutiny, not intermediate scrutiny, because they "are in common use by law-abiding citizens." The court acknowledged that the state has a right to limit the use of or ban citizen possession, sale, or transfer of "dangerous and unusual" weapons (such as hand grenades), but the weapons and ammunition barred by the 2013 law did not fall under that provision. The appellate court remanded the case to a federal district court, leaving the ban temporarily in place pending a review by the district court. The state said it would appeal the decision.[17][18] On March 4, 2016, Fourth Circuit agreed to rehear the case en banc and oral arguments took place on May 11, 2016.[19][20] The full court ruled that such assault weapons and magazines holding more than 10 bullets are not protected by the Second Amendment; the Supreme Court refused to hear the case.[21]
Firearms are prohibited from certain places, including schools and demonstrations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_by_state
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_homicide_rate
This probably isn't news to most of you, but its helpful for those of us not from the states.
I will edit this to include the bottom 5 for comparison at some point.
Sorry for the lack of effort - this is just a ctrl-c job.
|
On February 17 2018 03:02 superstartran wrote: And then people wonder why the NRA gets support lmao. Because the NRA tells them what they want to hear and doesn’t challenge their beliefs in anyway. It’s the same reason super left leaning democrats read the Huffington post and watch MSNBC.
|
On February 17 2018 02:59 Velr wrote: How does that make my statement untrue?
Ypu accept your children beong shot in school because freedom. Its disgusting. You’re making a hero’s effort proving you aren’t coming for the guns, you’re in favor of common sense gun regulation.
The problem is “freedom.” “It’s disgusting.”
Plansix/JockMcPlop later on ... ... nobody’s demonizing gun owners and nobody going to take away your guns. The real problem is the NRA.
|
On February 17 2018 03:07 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2018 02:59 Velr wrote: How does that make my statement untrue?
Ypu accept your children beong shot in school because freedom. Its disgusting. You’re making a hero’s effort proving you aren’t coming for the guns, you’re in favor of common sense gun regulation. The problem is “freedom.” “It’s disgusting.” Plansix/JockMcPlop later on ... ... nobody’s demonizing gun owners and nobody going to take away your guns. The real problem is the NRA. Please stop playing victim. I didn't said "nobody". I said I was not doing it. Stop trying to create this fictional version of my stance that makes your arguments easier.
|
On February 17 2018 03:07 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2018 02:59 Velr wrote: How does that make my statement untrue?
Ypu accept your children beong shot in school because freedom. Its disgusting. You’re making a hero’s effort proving you aren’t coming for the guns, you’re in favor of common sense gun regulation. The problem is “freedom.” “It’s disgusting.” Plansix/JockMcPlop later on ... ... nobody’s demonizing gun owners and nobody going to take away your guns. The real problem is the NRA.
The problem is a lack of any kind of movement towards a policy that makes sense and an admission that some gun control would probably help avoid some murders without infringing on rights.
|
On February 17 2018 03:15 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2018 03:07 Danglars wrote:On February 17 2018 02:59 Velr wrote: How does that make my statement untrue?
Ypu accept your children beong shot in school because freedom. Its disgusting. You’re making a hero’s effort proving you aren’t coming for the guns, you’re in favor of common sense gun regulation. The problem is “freedom.” “It’s disgusting.” Plansix/JockMcPlop later on ... ... nobody’s demonizing gun owners and nobody going to take away your guns. The real problem is the NRA. The problem is a lack of any kind of movement towards a policy that makes sense and an admission that some gun control would probably help avoid some murders without infringing on rights. Did you have a problem with Democrats when they refused to consider bump stock legislation that didn’t include magazine restrictions and suppressor restrictions?
Then we can talk about how legitimate gun owner’s fears are that each new law will continue to be pushed in succession until they cant own, carry, or use in self-defense.
|
On February 17 2018 03:12 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2018 03:07 Danglars wrote:On February 17 2018 02:59 Velr wrote: How does that make my statement untrue?
Ypu accept your children beong shot in school because freedom. Its disgusting. You’re making a hero’s effort proving you aren’t coming for the guns, you’re in favor of common sense gun regulation. The problem is “freedom.” “It’s disgusting.” Plansix/JockMcPlop later on ... ... nobody’s demonizing gun owners and nobody going to take away your guns. The real problem is the NRA. Please stop playing victim. I didn't said "nobody". I said I was not doing it. Stop trying to create this fictional version of my stance that makes your arguments easier. Your efforts to avoid doing the very thing prevent progress on this issue is laudable. Your continued prosecution of the boogeyman NRA and Republicans is idiotic and partisan.
|
There's nothing unique about USA compared to the rich world other than gun controls, or lack thereof. It was you who wrote:
On February 17 2018 02:48 superstartran wrote:
The statistics you listed bear no meaning to the unique situation of the United States of America. You cannot compare a highly homogeneous country like Japan to the United States; the areas where gun violence is most prevalent in the United States also happens to be where gun laws are incredibly strict such as Chicago, Baltimore, etc. predominantly in urban neighborhoods and predominantly among blacks.
But hey man, going with your logic that must mean blacks are violent people right? See, this is why you can't just throw out statistics on a whim without controlling for populations.
with the direct implication that the "unique" situation of USA is that blacks are responsible for the high gun violence in USA. There is no way other way to take it. Otherwise you wouldn't have mentioned it.
So currently your train of thought is: USA is in a unique situation in regard to its high gun crime. USA is unique not because of it's unique lack of effective gun controls. USA is unique becuase its population is not homogenous. Gun crime occur predominantly among blacks.
Then "But hey man, going with your logic that must mean blacks are violent people right?"
You claim to be asking for controlling for ethnic population, wealth, but quite honestly I don't see what ethnic population has to do with anything unless you are saying that ethnic population (whatever that means in this context) is responsible for your perception that gun controls are ineffective in USA. Do different ethnic groups have different abilities to purchase guns?
But hey man, going with your logic white people simply more predisposed towards school shootings and Vegas shootings right?
But Rofl don't take this out of statement out of context. The point I was making is that if you don't control for things such as ethnic population, wealth, and various other different factors you can make any assumption you want. It's a statistical fact that whites on average commit far more school shootings and Vegas shootings in the United States than any other ethnic group in the United States. Going by the logic you guys are using, that would make white people predisposed towards shooting school children and concertgoers , when you and I know both know that's a load of horse shit, and that there are way more factors then simple numbers.
|
On February 17 2018 03:21 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2018 03:15 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 17 2018 03:07 Danglars wrote:On February 17 2018 02:59 Velr wrote: How does that make my statement untrue?
Ypu accept your children beong shot in school because freedom. Its disgusting. You’re making a hero’s effort proving you aren’t coming for the guns, you’re in favor of common sense gun regulation. The problem is “freedom.” “It’s disgusting.” Plansix/JockMcPlop later on ... ... nobody’s demonizing gun owners and nobody going to take away your guns. The real problem is the NRA. The problem is a lack of any kind of movement towards a policy that makes sense and an admission that some gun control would probably help avoid some murders without infringing on rights. Did you have a problem with Democrats when they refused to consider bump stock legislation that didn’t include magazine restrictions and suppressor restrictions? Then we can talk about how legitimate gun owner’s fears are that each new law will continue to be pushed in succession until they cant own, carry, or use in self-defense.
If that happened then yeah that's a problem. I'm not coming at this from a US perspective so frankly I couldn't give a shit about who it is that's stopping gun legislation and I'm not allied with either of your parties.
Of course there needs to be compromise. The main issue that I can see at the moment is coming to some kind of consensus about exactly what might work and what is worth trying, and then actually attempting to make progress on it.
|
On February 17 2018 03:23 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2018 03:12 Plansix wrote:On February 17 2018 03:07 Danglars wrote:On February 17 2018 02:59 Velr wrote: How does that make my statement untrue?
Ypu accept your children beong shot in school because freedom. Its disgusting. You’re making a hero’s effort proving you aren’t coming for the guns, you’re in favor of common sense gun regulation. The problem is “freedom.” “It’s disgusting.” Plansix/JockMcPlop later on ... ... nobody’s demonizing gun owners and nobody going to take away your guns. The real problem is the NRA. Please stop playing victim. I didn't said "nobody". I said I was not doing it. Stop trying to create this fictional version of my stance that makes your arguments easier. Your efforts to avoid doing the very thing prevent progress on this issue is laudable. Your continued prosecution of the boogeyman NRA and Republicans is idiotic and partisan. The NRA isn't a boogeyman. They are the most powerful lobby in Washington right now and have been since the 1990s. I would say that FNMA was in a tie race up until the mortgage crisis, but after that its been the NRA. If they got out of the way, we would have some high quality gun safety laws and maybe even a federal licence to carry. The sky would be the limit.
|
On February 17 2018 03:25 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2018 03:21 Danglars wrote:On February 17 2018 03:15 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 17 2018 03:07 Danglars wrote:On February 17 2018 02:59 Velr wrote: How does that make my statement untrue?
Ypu accept your children beong shot in school because freedom. Its disgusting. You’re making a hero’s effort proving you aren’t coming for the guns, you’re in favor of common sense gun regulation. The problem is “freedom.” “It’s disgusting.” Plansix/JockMcPlop later on ... ... nobody’s demonizing gun owners and nobody going to take away your guns. The real problem is the NRA. The problem is a lack of any kind of movement towards a policy that makes sense and an admission that some gun control would probably help avoid some murders without infringing on rights. Did you have a problem with Democrats when they refused to consider bump stock legislation that didn’t include magazine restrictions and suppressor restrictions? Then we can talk about how legitimate gun owner’s fears are that each new law will continue to be pushed in succession until they cant own, carry, or use in self-defense. If that happened then yeah that's a problem. I'm not coming at this from a US perspective so frankly I couldn't give a shit about who it is that's stopping gun legislation and I'm not allied with either of your parties. Of course there needs to be compromise. The main issue that I can see at the moment is coming to some kind of consensus about exactly what might work and what is worth trying, and then actually attempting to make progress on it. That’s a very pretty thing coming from you that said “The problem isn't the complexity of the issue. its the refusal of some people to even contemplate trying to take any action at all.” You think you know what the problem is, and when I point out one aspect that goes against it, you throw up your hands and “couldn’t give a shit about who it is” and “I’m not coming at this from a US perspective.”
A truthful version of you would’ve stated straight up that you have no idea why there’s been inaction and it could be complex, not complex, or refusal to contemplate any action at all, or not refusal to contemplate any action at all. You literally said the opposite and are now backtracking at high speed. Admit you’re clueless and don’t try to definitely state what the problem is and isn’t if you’re literally this clueless. Your analogues in the states are definitely a huge part of the problem.
|
On February 17 2018 03:37 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2018 03:25 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 17 2018 03:21 Danglars wrote:On February 17 2018 03:15 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 17 2018 03:07 Danglars wrote:On February 17 2018 02:59 Velr wrote: How does that make my statement untrue?
Ypu accept your children beong shot in school because freedom. Its disgusting. You’re making a hero’s effort proving you aren’t coming for the guns, you’re in favor of common sense gun regulation. The problem is “freedom.” “It’s disgusting.” Plansix/JockMcPlop later on ... ... nobody’s demonizing gun owners and nobody going to take away your guns. The real problem is the NRA. The problem is a lack of any kind of movement towards a policy that makes sense and an admission that some gun control would probably help avoid some murders without infringing on rights. Did you have a problem with Democrats when they refused to consider bump stock legislation that didn’t include magazine restrictions and suppressor restrictions? Then we can talk about how legitimate gun owner’s fears are that each new law will continue to be pushed in succession until they cant own, carry, or use in self-defense. If that happened then yeah that's a problem. I'm not coming at this from a US perspective so frankly I couldn't give a shit about who it is that's stopping gun legislation and I'm not allied with either of your parties. Of course there needs to be compromise. The main issue that I can see at the moment is coming to some kind of consensus about exactly what might work and what is worth trying, and then actually attempting to make progress on it. That’s a very pretty thing coming from you that said “The problem isn't the complexity of the issue. its the refusal of some people to even contemplate trying to take any action at all.” You think you know what the problem is, and when I point out one aspect that goes against it, you throw up your hands and “couldn’t give a shit about who it is” and “I’m not coming at this from a US perspective.” A truthful version of you would’ve stated straight up that you have no idea why there’s been inaction and it could be complex, not complex, or refusal to contemplate any action at all, or not refusal to contemplate any action at all. You literally said the opposite and are now backtracking at high speed. Admit you’re clueless and don’t try to definitely state what the problem is and isn’t if you’re literally this clueless. Your analogues in the states are definitely a huge part of the problem.
Are you denying that the NRA refuse to move or let republicans move in any way at all towards anything resembling sensible gun control? It seems like you are deflecting here to be honest. I don't really know that much about the history of it but every source I have seen (bear in mind I don't read stuff like Breitbart and Infowars) are pretty unanimous about where the problem lies.
|
On February 17 2018 03:28 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2018 03:23 Danglars wrote:On February 17 2018 03:12 Plansix wrote:On February 17 2018 03:07 Danglars wrote:On February 17 2018 02:59 Velr wrote: How does that make my statement untrue?
Ypu accept your children beong shot in school because freedom. Its disgusting. You’re making a hero’s effort proving you aren’t coming for the guns, you’re in favor of common sense gun regulation. The problem is “freedom.” “It’s disgusting.” Plansix/JockMcPlop later on ... ... nobody’s demonizing gun owners and nobody going to take away your guns. The real problem is the NRA. Please stop playing victim. I didn't said "nobody". I said I was not doing it. Stop trying to create this fictional version of my stance that makes your arguments easier. Your efforts to avoid doing the very thing prevent progress on this issue is laudable. Your continued prosecution of the boogeyman NRA and Republicans is idiotic and partisan. The NRA isn't a boogeyman. They are the most powerful lobby in Washington right now and have been since the 1990s. I would say that FNMA was in a tie race up until the mortgage crisis, but after that its been the NRA. If they got out of the way, we would have some high quality gun safety laws and maybe even a federal licence to carry. The sky would be the limit. The NRA’s power is in its membership that, unlike you, listen and critique people that want to demonize gun owners and ban guns. You just keep pointing at your boogeyman (“hey man I’m right because everybody calls them the boogeyman”) and never the whole issue.
|
On February 17 2018 02:34 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2018 02:32 Broetchenholer wrote:On February 17 2018 02:12 superstartran wrote:On February 17 2018 02:02 Broetchenholer wrote: You don't need to own working firearms for sport shooting or collecting so we can probably drop them from the argument. I mean, it's still a valid reason to use them, it's just a much weaker argument to have something potential dangerous. So, self defense, how much less of a murder rate would you trade your guns for. If you could simply reduce murder by disarming the civil society and it would result in reduced murder off the bat, but the rest of murdered people could not have the chance to defend them selves? You're under the assumption that removing firearms instantly reduces murder rates. That's the furthest thing from the truth and you know it, as evidence to countries like Russia and Brazil where firearms are virtually banned and yet the murder rate is through the roof. It is a much more complex situation, especially when you consider that pockets of the United States of America are more in line with a 3rd world country than many of the 1st world countries that everyone loves to parade around as the pinnacle of peace and prosperity. First: Why are you comparing the USA with Russia and Brazil but not with Canada or Great Britain? Sure, apples aren't pears (or whatever your equivalent idiom is  ) but you compare apples with chilis. Second: I am aware of that, i am asking a theoretical question. Guns obviously provide a sense of security that might be real of fake ( i for one get mostly murdered in PUBG even though i am almost always armed). If you are not allowed to have a gun, some people will get hurt that might have not been had they been armed and i acknowledge that. So, the question is, is the perception of safety and the option to use deadly force for protection worth more then a lower statistical chance to have to use it? You're assuming that lowering gun usage lowers all homicide rates. That's not true. Two, I'm not comparing, I'm merely pointing out that you cannot hypothetically ban all weapons and then suddenly all violence disappears as evidenced to those countries I just listed.
Well, if it doesn't work for Brazil, it obviously cannot work for the USA. I would assume that if countries that are economically and socially best comparable to the US can make gun bans work, it means more then if countries that are not really comparable to the US cannot make it work. But i guess my examples are just invalid and yours are not
So, do you believe that violent crime would go up if all weapons were confiscated?
|
On February 17 2018 03:40 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2018 03:37 Danglars wrote:On February 17 2018 03:25 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 17 2018 03:21 Danglars wrote:On February 17 2018 03:15 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 17 2018 03:07 Danglars wrote:On February 17 2018 02:59 Velr wrote: How does that make my statement untrue?
Ypu accept your children beong shot in school because freedom. Its disgusting. You’re making a hero’s effort proving you aren’t coming for the guns, you’re in favor of common sense gun regulation. The problem is “freedom.” “It’s disgusting.” Plansix/JockMcPlop later on ... ... nobody’s demonizing gun owners and nobody going to take away your guns. The real problem is the NRA. The problem is a lack of any kind of movement towards a policy that makes sense and an admission that some gun control would probably help avoid some murders without infringing on rights. Did you have a problem with Democrats when they refused to consider bump stock legislation that didn’t include magazine restrictions and suppressor restrictions? Then we can talk about how legitimate gun owner’s fears are that each new law will continue to be pushed in succession until they cant own, carry, or use in self-defense. If that happened then yeah that's a problem. I'm not coming at this from a US perspective so frankly I couldn't give a shit about who it is that's stopping gun legislation and I'm not allied with either of your parties. Of course there needs to be compromise. The main issue that I can see at the moment is coming to some kind of consensus about exactly what might work and what is worth trying, and then actually attempting to make progress on it. That’s a very pretty thing coming from you that said “The problem isn't the complexity of the issue. its the refusal of some people to even contemplate trying to take any action at all.” You think you know what the problem is, and when I point out one aspect that goes against it, you throw up your hands and “couldn’t give a shit about who it is” and “I’m not coming at this from a US perspective.” A truthful version of you would’ve stated straight up that you have no idea why there’s been inaction and it could be complex, not complex, or refusal to contemplate any action at all, or not refusal to contemplate any action at all. You literally said the opposite and are now backtracking at high speed. Admit you’re clueless and don’t try to definitely state what the problem is and isn’t if you’re literally this clueless. Your analogues in the states are definitely a huge part of the problem. Are you denying that the NRA refuse to move or let republicans move in any way at all towards anything resembling sensible gun control? It seems like you are deflecting here to be honest. I don't really know that much about the history of it but every source I have seen (bear in mind I don't read stuff like Breitbart and Infowars) are pretty unanimous about where the problem lies. No, you just got done stating what the problem was and then dodge and flee with excuses. Then “are you denying...?” Pathetic. Either retract what you’re now contradicting, or just link the people that may have started with facts undergirding their argument whose conclusions you adopt. I’m done with just another European/Brit that parrots articles saying “the problem is this it isn’t that” then get called on it and immediately “I don’t know the US ... I couldn’t give a shit about who it is.” It’s a waste of time with another person that doesn’t know why they believe it is this way, but can remember people they trust saying it was that way in the past. It’s like fuck man ... be better.
|
So you aren't denying it then. Good.
It seems like you're being incredibly hostile here considering I agreed with you if the dems are causing problems then this is on them too.
As fa as I can see, you have access obscure facts about single incidents, and then you bring them out when arguing with someone from another country to deflect and confuse them and claim some kind of mad moral high ground.
Also, coincidentally, this seems to allow you to completely avoid answering genuine questions by ranting.
|
|
|
|