|
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 May 26 2018 02:01 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2018 01:57 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 26 2018 01:43 superstartran wrote:
Because governments typically don't use those things within urban cities because you'd literally be destroying your own infrastructure and it's immensely bad PR.
Fair point, but tyrannical dictators tend to have warped priorities when it comes to this stuff. Regardless of this, I'd still love to know what it is people think they can do with guns to break a tyranny that they can't do without guns. Gonna shoot police until there's none left then start on the military police? Assassinate the president and everyone else involved in the government? Probably because there's been multiple instances where the U.S. army for all it's military might struggle heavily against insurgents armed with nothing but homemade explosives and cold war era weapons. The U.S. military for example had major issues during the Vietnam War, Japan during WW2, and of course the recent examples of rooting out insurgents in their conflicts with certain Middle East countries/organizations.
None of your examples on this page have helped your cause at all.
The Revolutionary War was fought by large armies with military-grade weaponry in a mid-industrial revolution society. It has literally no relevance to today's situation.
WWII, Vietnam, and the Middle East were/are fought against highly weaponized opponents. These aren't countries that enshrined their citizens' right to own weapons and then fought the U.S. with household weapons. You display a disturbing lack of historical understanding when you perpetuate these lies.
I swear, next argument you're going to whip out is "we let 18-year-olds in the military have all kinds of weapons!".
|
On May 26 2018 04:33 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2018 02:29 zlefin wrote:
do you have any actual evidence to backup your claim about it being effective at stopping tyranny/authoritarianism? [I may ignore others' arguments on this, as I'm looking at your argument/claim only]
On the scale of an entire nation....? I am assuming you don't want... the revolutionary war as an example. Clearly has only minimal relevance. I am not knowledgeable enough to know if there is a good example. But I don't think it's a fair request. More like something to be debated. Do you have any evidence it isn't effective at stopping tyranny?
the revolutionary war is indeed a rather poor example; but we can go over why it's a poor example if you like.
it most certainly is a fair request though; you made a claim. I asked if you have evidence to backup that claim. it's entirely fair to ask if someone making an affirmative claim has evidence to backup that claim, ro at least to ask what evidence they have. why would that not be fair?
|
On May 26 2018 04:53 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2018 04:33 travis wrote:On May 26 2018 02:29 zlefin wrote:
do you have any actual evidence to backup your claim about it being effective at stopping tyranny/authoritarianism? [I may ignore others' arguments on this, as I'm looking at your argument/claim only]
On the scale of an entire nation....? I am assuming you don't want... the revolutionary war as an example. Clearly has only minimal relevance. I am not knowledgeable enough to know if there is a good example. But I don't think it's a fair request. More like something to be debated. Do you have any evidence it isn't effective at stopping tyranny? the revolutionary war is indeed a rather poor example; but we can go over why it's a poor example if you like. it most certainly is a fair request though; you made a claim. I asked if you have evidence to backup that claim. it's entirely fair to ask if someone making an affirmative claim has evidence to backup that claim, ro at least to ask what evidence they have. why would that not be fair?
Well, if your intention is solely to further knowledge then of course it's fair. But if your intention is to weaken my position then it is unfair. My argument is a philosophical one, dealing with reason and practicality and causality. You're asking for evidence of something that 1.) could only happen in a recent portion of history, and 2.) requires a specific, unlikely set of conditions.
If by "evidence", you don't mean examples, then I would just throw out any instance of self defense with a gun.
|
United States42008 Posts
On May 26 2018 01:43 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2018 13:08 KwarK wrote:
I've missed a few pages here but I'd just like to let superstar know that the UK is not drowning in knife fights. That's just not a thing. Funny, because I'm pretty sure that the U.K's crime rate is actually significantly higher than the U.S. even after you adjust for their definition of violent crime. If we just take it at face value like most of you do with gun statistics (without even readjusting definitions and how each government gathers statistics), you'll find that the U.K. actually has something like 2,000+ violent crimes per 100,000 residents, while the United States has like 466 violent crimes per 100,000 residents
For anyone who was curious, his initial claim was that Brits are constantly knifing each other because they don't have guns. I know it wouldn't appear that way because he's doing the thing where he defends a different argument to his own but it was.
He's repeating the same thing he did the last few times where he says something idiotic and then flatly denies it and insists that we were talking about something else, but on a forum where the posts are visible. Apparently we were talking about violent crime statistics and comparisons between the UK and the US, and not the epidemic of knife fighting that has, in his head, overtaken the lawns and playgrounds of England.
|
On May 26 2018 05:11 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2018 04:53 zlefin wrote:On May 26 2018 04:33 travis wrote:On May 26 2018 02:29 zlefin wrote:
do you have any actual evidence to backup your claim about it being effective at stopping tyranny/authoritarianism? [I may ignore others' arguments on this, as I'm looking at your argument/claim only]
On the scale of an entire nation....? I am assuming you don't want... the revolutionary war as an example. Clearly has only minimal relevance. I am not knowledgeable enough to know if there is a good example. But I don't think it's a fair request. More like something to be debated. Do you have any evidence it isn't effective at stopping tyranny? the revolutionary war is indeed a rather poor example; but we can go over why it's a poor example if you like. it most certainly is a fair request though; you made a claim. I asked if you have evidence to backup that claim. it's entirely fair to ask if someone making an affirmative claim has evidence to backup that claim, ro at least to ask what evidence they have. why would that not be fair? Well, if your intention is solely to further knowledge then of course it's fair. But if your intention is to weaken my position then it is unfair. My argument is a philosophical one, dealing with reason and practicality and causality. You're asking for evidence of something that 1.) could only happen in a recent portion of history, and 2.) requires a specific, unlikely set of conditions. If by "evidence", you don't mean examples, then I would just throw out any instance of self defense with a gun.
it sounds like you're weakening your own position. or rather, that you know your position is weak, but you insist on making a claim that is far stronger than you should be making.
fairness-wise, it doesn't matter what my intention is. it's a well-settled point of argumentation that if you're making a claim, it's good to have evidence to back it up.
we can go with a broader category of evidence if you wish, but that of course makes for far weaker evidence, and thus more likely that you won't be able to substantiate your claim with it.
self defense with a gun does not seem to do anything to establish your thesis, so i'm not sure what merit it would have as an example at all, setting aside the numerous other flaws with it as an argument.
|
On May 26 2018 05:32 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2018 05:11 travis wrote:On May 26 2018 04:53 zlefin wrote:On May 26 2018 04:33 travis wrote:On May 26 2018 02:29 zlefin wrote:
do you have any actual evidence to backup your claim about it being effective at stopping tyranny/authoritarianism? [I may ignore others' arguments on this, as I'm looking at your argument/claim only]
On the scale of an entire nation....? I am assuming you don't want... the revolutionary war as an example. Clearly has only minimal relevance. I am not knowledgeable enough to know if there is a good example. But I don't think it's a fair request. More like something to be debated. Do you have any evidence it isn't effective at stopping tyranny? the revolutionary war is indeed a rather poor example; but we can go over why it's a poor example if you like. it most certainly is a fair request though; you made a claim. I asked if you have evidence to backup that claim. it's entirely fair to ask if someone making an affirmative claim has evidence to backup that claim, ro at least to ask what evidence they have. why would that not be fair? Well, if your intention is solely to further knowledge then of course it's fair. But if your intention is to weaken my position then it is unfair. My argument is a philosophical one, dealing with reason and practicality and causality. You're asking for evidence of something that 1.) could only happen in a recent portion of history, and 2.) requires a specific, unlikely set of conditions. If by "evidence", you don't mean examples, then I would just throw out any instance of self defense with a gun. it sounds like you're weakening your own position. or rather, that you know your position is weak, but you insist on making a claim that is far stronger than you should be making. fairness-wise, it doesn't matter what my intention is. it's a well-settled point of argumentation that if you're making a claim, it's good to have evidence to back it up. we can go with a broader category of evidence if you wish, but that of course makes for far weaker evidence, and thus more likely that you won't be able to substantiate your claim with it. self defense with a gun does not seem to do anything to establish your thesis, so i'm not sure what merit it would have as an example at all, setting aside the numerous other flaws with it as an argument.
So if you acknowledge you are attempting to weaken my position then why do you ignore my counter question of "do you have any evidence that it can't work"? By taking your own position you are certainly making your own claim, and according to you such a question would be fair for me to pose.
But I say we forget all that anyways and acknowledge that the value of wisdom and logic far exceeds the value of "examples", which at best will simply revolve around a "similar but different" situation - and is susceptible to having thousands of holes poked into it from either side.
I didn't come here to have a debate about history. I am not a history buff. I've already admitted I don't have such examples in my first reply, so I am not sure what you are pursuing. If you think that this makes my position weak then okay, whatever. If you had anything to say about my actual reasoning then I would have gladly discussed it.
|
On May 26 2018 05:39 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2018 05:32 zlefin wrote:On May 26 2018 05:11 travis wrote:On May 26 2018 04:53 zlefin wrote:On May 26 2018 04:33 travis wrote:On May 26 2018 02:29 zlefin wrote:
do you have any actual evidence to backup your claim about it being effective at stopping tyranny/authoritarianism? [I may ignore others' arguments on this, as I'm looking at your argument/claim only]
On the scale of an entire nation....? I am assuming you don't want... the revolutionary war as an example. Clearly has only minimal relevance. I am not knowledgeable enough to know if there is a good example. But I don't think it's a fair request. More like something to be debated. Do you have any evidence it isn't effective at stopping tyranny? the revolutionary war is indeed a rather poor example; but we can go over why it's a poor example if you like. it most certainly is a fair request though; you made a claim. I asked if you have evidence to backup that claim. it's entirely fair to ask if someone making an affirmative claim has evidence to backup that claim, ro at least to ask what evidence they have. why would that not be fair? Well, if your intention is solely to further knowledge then of course it's fair. But if your intention is to weaken my position then it is unfair. My argument is a philosophical one, dealing with reason and practicality and causality. You're asking for evidence of something that 1.) could only happen in a recent portion of history, and 2.) requires a specific, unlikely set of conditions. If by "evidence", you don't mean examples, then I would just throw out any instance of self defense with a gun. it sounds like you're weakening your own position. or rather, that you know your position is weak, but you insist on making a claim that is far stronger than you should be making. fairness-wise, it doesn't matter what my intention is. it's a well-settled point of argumentation that if you're making a claim, it's good to have evidence to back it up. we can go with a broader category of evidence if you wish, but that of course makes for far weaker evidence, and thus more likely that you won't be able to substantiate your claim with it. self defense with a gun does not seem to do anything to establish your thesis, so i'm not sure what merit it would have as an example at all, setting aside the numerous other flaws with it as an argument. So if you acknowledge you are attempting to weaken my position then why do you ignore my counter question of "do you have any evidence that it can't work"? By taking your own position you are certainly making your own claim, and according to you such a question would be fair for me to pose. But I say we forget all that anyways and acknowledge that the value of wisdom and logic far exceeds the value of "examples", which at best will simply revolve around a "similar but different" situation - and is susceptible to having thousands of holes poked into it from either side. I didn't come here to have a debate about history. I am not a history buff. I've already admitted I don't have such examples in my first reply, so I am not sure what you are pursuing. If you think that this makes my position weak then okay, whatever. If you had anything to say about my actual reasoning then I would have gladly discussed it.
because that's the wrong counter question. you don't seem to understand argumentation that well.
I don't have to take the position that it doesn't work. I can take the position that whether or not it's effective is unproven and unknown. i.e. the position that your claim is not adequately supported.
wisdom and logic are indeed valuable, but they are also very susceptible to having thousands of holes poked into it.
and at any rate, I cannot agree that wisdom and logic exceed the value of examples; they're complementary, and both are necessary. without any empirical foundation, there's little outside math to base conclusions upon. and the topic is outside the areas where it could be proven with pure math.
your position so far is factually weak, because you've done little to substantiate it. if you're fine with believing something without having a good justification for that belief, it's a free country go right ahead. I asked if you have evidence; then we got into a tangent on what constitutes "fair" arguing (because you raised it). that's how we got here.
I'll review your prior listed reasoning in a bit and comment on that possibly.
|
You come off as pretty condescending. The system of rules by which you have decided arguments must work is not some kind of objective reality. I think I am capable of debating things with people just fine.
Doing little to substantiate a position absolutely does not mean the position is weak. People can have whatever beliefs they want to have and not want to talk about them, but that does not make them weak. And I actually did want to talk about it. It's actually why I posted here. It' was not me that vastly limited the scope of the discussion. And, when I replied that I don't know, you didn't seem to have anything else of worth to say. It's perfectly fine for people to not know stuff, it does absolutely nothing to prove or disprove a position. Now, if you were able to say "well, I do know..... blah blah blah *starts giving a lesson on it*", then that would be pretty valuable.
As far as substantiating my discussion, I think that is kind of something that naturally occurs during discourse. I haven't really had any discussions where someone just shows up and talks for 10 minutes and then goes "okay now try to poke a hole in any of it!". That would just be annoying.
|
On May 26 2018 01:43 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2018 13:08 KwarK wrote:
I've missed a few pages here but I'd just like to let superstar know that the UK is not drowning in knife fights. That's just not a thing. Funny, because I'm pretty sure that the U.K's crime rate is actually significantly higher than the U.S. even after you adjust for their definition of violent crime. If we just take it at face value like most of you do with gun statistics (without even readjusting definitions and how each government gathers statistics), you'll find that the U.K. actually has something like 2,000+ violent crimes per 100,000 residents, while the United States has like 466 violent crimes per 100,000 residents. But the U.K. is such an upstanding bastion of how to deter crime amirite? Show nested quote +On May 26 2018 01:30 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 26 2018 01:24 travis wrote:
Since we are temporarily on gun control, I will throw out that the strongest (and commonly dismissed argument) for no or extremely limited gun control is protection from authoritarianism. Despite the ridiculous arguments that millions of people make (somehow even some historians), the constitution is pretty clearly written and above that - the writers wrote other essays on their intent when creating the 2nd amendment. It's also common sense.
People love to dismiss this argument, but it's basically an inevitability that if you take away the power of people to fight tyranny, then tyranny will eventually rule.
Kwark made a post a couple weeks ago I actually really respected. He made the common sense statement that people typically don't come out and say. Some deaths due to tragic events are just the price of having the freedom.
If your government has missile armed drones, tanks and planes with big nuclear bombs they have already taken away the power of the people to fight tyranny. What could the American public do to fight tyranny with guns that they couldn't do without guns? Because governments typically don't use those things within urban cities because you'd literally be destroying your own infrastructure and it's immensely bad PR. Show nested quote +On May 25 2018 23:37 r.Evo wrote:On May 25 2018 19:52 evilfatsh1t wrote:On May 25 2018 18:07 Danglars wrote:On May 25 2018 17:28 ShambhalaWar wrote:On May 25 2018 16:59 PoulsenB wrote:On May 25 2018 12:58 Orome wrote:
The military rifles are taken home without ammunition, so that's a pretty misleading statement in the first place.
For all the befuddling American right-wing insistence that any type of gun control is the mother of all evil though, I'm almost equally annoyed by the lazy 'gun control would fix all problems' approach. Appears to me that the problematic culture the US has built around guns runs much deeper than just accessability. I'm all for better forms of gun control, but I can't help feel that the endless and superficial discussions around it prevent questions that are just as important. Why so many Americans on this forum (over the years) have seriously and proudly proclaimed their need and right to shoot any robbers or burglars for example (should said burglars ever appear). While I'm all for responsible and properly regulated gun ownership, this burglar thing has been boggling my mind as well. Even in Poland we have people advocating widespread access to guns on the basis of "I need to defend my home against burglars", but you basically never hear of cases where burglars entered a home when the owner was inside - usually the criminals strike when people are away on vacation or sth like that. For me it reeks of a kinda wild-west power fantasy (and maybe even insecurity - as Professor Farsworth once said, "who needs courage when you have a gun?"). Cool story in the US, another shooting just happened, and there was a guy outside with a gun... who drew his gun and confronted the shooter... then the shooter shot and killed him. End of story. Interesting contrast to the waffle house shooting, where someone without a gun stopped a shooter... My country is too stupid and bought out at the highest levels of power to actually do anything, even when children are getting shot and killed over and over and over again. It's truly fucking pathetic. Here's my suggestion, you remove the republican shills who are bought and payed for from congress, then change the laws... remove the payed for dems as well... but at least they aren't the ones defending all this gun bullshit. You'll have to remove the United States citizens that have darn good reasons to question the motives and scopes of the gun control activists and lobby. There's enough of them to unite behind new candidates and activist groups, should somehow the current shills get replaced in mass. I gather that some of these citizens are included in your opener of "My country is too stupid." I cheer and salute the American that stopped a bad guy with a gun by being a good guy with a gun. This NRA video is making the rounds. I think it makes a valuable point as it wraps up towards the end. I hope both sides can move towards mutual understanding and empathy and meet somewhere in the gap. I'm pretty pessimistic at this happening in the short term. edited lel. i retract my statements i will say that the NRA's analogy of media censorship is comparable to restriction of gun ownership is absolutely retarded. this chain of thought has been discussed to death on this thread already though so no further comments Personally I find both US gun culture abhorrent (massive fan of the Swiss approach there the more I learn about it. I like the idea of a well-regulated militia apparently) while also finding US media culture when it comes to mass shootings abhorrent. Seeing US coverage and German coverage side by side when it came to e.g. the 2016 Munich shooting was an eye-opener for me personally. I've been really damn glad we do things differently over here when it comes to both of these topics ever since. Hard to judge which is actually worse in practice, but when in doubt most nations have genuinely shitty media outlets at least attempting similar coverage while there is no nation with a similar gun culture anywhere on the globe. It's the mixture of seeing guns as amazing for the sake of it and as stuff that is used recreationally and media glorifying mass murderers that creates this absolutely toxic mixture in my opinion. On May 25 2018 23:34 superstartran wrote:On May 25 2018 09:41 WolfintheSheep wrote:On May 25 2018 08:08 superstartran wrote:On May 25 2018 06:21 Nixer wrote:On May 25 2018 05:38 superstartran wrote:On May 24 2018 20:54 Jockmcplop wrote:
So we have in Switzerland:
1: The ability of the police to check up on people with automatic weapons
2: Carry/conceal licenses for weapons
3: Criminal records mean you aren't allowed to own weapons, and they can be taken from you
4: Ownership/sale is illegal with exceptions (although from what I have read these are fairly loosely applied)
5: Specific permits to shoot weapons
Superstartran do you think applying some parts of the Swiss system to US law would be a good thing?
If so, which parts would you like to see applied to the US, and which parts wouldn't you?
It looks to me like this is a system that works well in Switzerland, although it has been designed for Switzerland and certainly wouldn't export particularly well. There's a cultural attitude at play where I would see this kind of system as very 'European' in nature. I'm not even sure what I mean by that, I know its vague but its a feeling I have.
However, if more gun control is being considered, America could certainly take some inspiration from these systems and laws. It's not just the system in place here; people don't realize that Switzerland already automatically has 200k-250k fully automatic military issue rifles at any given point in time, and yet you don't see any kind of mass shootings. Alot of this comes down to their culture surrounding firearms, and what the purpose of the firearm is used for. Yes, the system works, but the system only works if the culture and society in general accepts that system. Fairly certain they're converted into semi-automatic rifles. If they choose to purchase a rifle when they finish their service that is. There are currently 160k active duty soldiers, my bad. That still doesn't dispute the fact that there are a significant amount of fully automatic weapons floating around (not including the ones held in the hands of civilians). On May 25 2018 06:40 WolfintheSheep wrote:On May 25 2018 05:38 superstartran wrote:On May 24 2018 20:54 Jockmcplop wrote:
So we have in Switzerland:
1: The ability of the police to check up on people with automatic weapons
2: Carry/conceal licenses for weapons
3: Criminal records mean you aren't allowed to own weapons, and they can be taken from you
4: Ownership/sale is illegal with exceptions (although from what I have read these are fairly loosely applied)
5: Specific permits to shoot weapons
Superstartran do you think applying some parts of the Swiss system to US law would be a good thing?
If so, which parts would you like to see applied to the US, and which parts wouldn't you?
It looks to me like this is a system that works well in Switzerland, although it has been designed for Switzerland and certainly wouldn't export particularly well. There's a cultural attitude at play where I would see this kind of system as very 'European' in nature. I'm not even sure what I mean by that, I know its vague but its a feeling I have.
However, if more gun control is being considered, America could certainly take some inspiration from these systems and laws. It's not just the system in place here; people don't realize that Switzerland already automatically has 200k-250k fully automatic military issue rifles at any given point in time, and yet you don't see any kind of mass shootings. Alot of this comes down to their culture surrounding firearms, and what the purpose of the firearm is used for. Yes, the system works, but the system only works if the culture and society in general accepts that system. The reddit poster you linked even says the military rifles are converted to semi-auto. What part of 'active' duty do you not understand selective reader? How about you stop being such a selective writer before you start accusing others of anything? There are not 200k automatic military rifles "floating around" in Switzerland, any more than there are 7000 nukes floating around in the US. But why argue the actual argument when you can just ad homenin non stop? You still haven't addressed my point as to how Switzerland has a significant amount of fully automatic firearms floating around and mass shootings still don't occur. That's because they neither glorify mass murderers nor guns. e: Before r.Evo comes on here and says "NO YOU CAN'T IT'S HARD YOU HAVE TO FILL OUT ALL THIS PAPERWORK" Excuse me? I believe I've been very specific in that obtaining e.g. a fully automatic rifle to own it is deliberately comparatively easy in Switzerland (easy compared to e.g. Germany or most EU nations, hard compared to lots of US states), you might have accidentally misread that. If you're supportive of e.g. guns being taken away when crimes pop up in someone's record or the suspicion of domestic violence arises (which means all weapons need to be at least declared, all the way down to soft-airs), if you're cool with ammunition being strictly kept separate at all times and it being extremely heavily regulated when and where these fully automatic weapons can be fired then I think that's great and I fully agree with you with in seeing Switzerland as a great example to follow! Which of the Swiss regulations would you like to see implemented asap in the US? It's all the additional regulations and the attitude towards guns as weapons of war instead of recreational toys or self-defense weapons that results in an overall more healthy gun culture. You do realize the video I just posted is a guy with two fully automatic weapons with silencers and laser sights on them, all which are extremely heavily regulated in the United States of America. Your post makes it seem like it's almost impossible to even get one, which is the furthest thing from the truth. Guy in the video said he paid about $4000 USD for a fully automatic SD MP5, which in the U.S. because of the fully automatic weapons ban pre-1986ish (IIRC) it's something in the neighborhood of like 35k USD.
It is a dude on stairs in a video. He might be in switzerland, he might actually have guns, the guns might be fully automatic or not. They might even not be real guns at all. I have no idea, and so far your sources have been horribly shit, so i have no reason to believe some random dude on youtube. I could grab a camera, site myself on a bunch of stairs and say that it is impossible to get any guns in switzerland, and upload that onto youtube right now. That doesn't make any of that true.
Similarly with regards to the UK crime statistic you mentioned earlier: Please source that stuff. I have no interest in digging after any of your statistics to see if they are in any way correct or random bullshit some dude invented. You have so far not been the greatest source of information, so please cite your sources.
|
On May 26 2018 06:07 travis wrote:
You come off as pretty condescending. The system of rules by which you have decided arguments must work is not some kind of objective reality. I think I am capable of debating things with people just fine.
Doing little to substantiate a position absolutely does not mean the position is weak. People can have whatever beliefs they want to have and not want to talk about them, but that does not make them weak. And I actually did want to talk about it. It's actually why I posted here. It' was not me that vastly limited the scope of the discussion. And, when I replied that I don't know, you didn't seem to have anything else of worth to say. It's perfectly fine for people to not know stuff, it does absolutely nothing to prove or disprove a position. Now, if you were able to say "well, I do know..... blah blah blah *starts giving a lesson on it*", then that would be pretty valuable.
As far as substantiating my discussion, I think that is kind of something that naturally occurs during discourse. I haven't really had any discussions where someone just shows up and talks for 10 minutes and then goes "okay now try to poke a hole in any of it!". That would just be annoying.
I probably am kind of condescending.
it is a sort of objective reality actually; it's not one you're required to adhere to, but it's not just random beliefs of mine; it's well established systems in philosophy and science that govern argumentation and truth seeking. from which I gather you have probably not extensively studied formal philosophy.
that you think you're capable of debating things doesn't mean you are. I cite the dunning-kruger effect as evidence of that.
an unsubstantiated position rather is weak by definition; it's possible that it is substantiated and you simply don't want to go over it, but that's a different story. you were quite clear that it's the case that you don't know much to back it up, rather than not wanting to talk about it.
I didn't limit the scope of the discussion vastly; I asked about your evidence, you said you didn't have any. so there's not much more to discuss, just some side tangents about ethics and fairness.
I have had discussions like that; and they're very useful when trying to establish what is actually true with a high level of rigor.
it's fine for people to not know stuff. but if you don't know stuff you shouldn't act so sure that you're correct. you spoke as if you were very sure of being correct on the matter, not as if it was your impression but you were uncertain. if I misread you, then i'm sorry.
as to a few of the specific you mention:
anecdotes better than nothing, but not by much, especially as all sorts of biases can be applied in the collection of them.
There's more than enough history to get some kind of samples; we can point to early firearms existing c.a 1500, and therefore varying degrees of weapons regulation (since weapons regulations existed long before guns anyways); and there've been many tyrannical regimes throughout the world since that time. so there's clearly room for someone to have done a decent analysis. you don't have to know it yourself, but that's the point of citing research done by others.
as to the founding fathers notes; that's indeed something, an appeal to authority is a bit better than nothing indeed. but in order to address thier points properly, I'd need to know which ones you're citing/which arguments they made. I know they made some arguments in the area, but do no recall them well enough to discuss offhand without a source.
you were not interested in discussing why the revolutionary war was not a good example.
the 2nd amendment does not mandate no/very limited gun regulation. it allows for quite a lot of gun regulation.
|
On May 26 2018 06:07 travis wrote:
Doing little to substantiate a position absolutely does not mean the position is weak. People can have whatever beliefs they want to have and not want to talk about them, but that does not make them weak.
In your eyes, what does it take for a position to be strong? Can I just say I strongly believe the sun is composed of mayonnaise and I am totally cool thinking that? Is there no system we can use to judge the merits of the idea that the sun is mayonnaise? You seem to be roughly saying that every thought has value and I can't wrap my head around that. I think you need to justify that and explain why someone's belief that the sun is mayonnaise is worse than someone's belief that the sun is plasma.
|
All I can say, and I'm aware that this point is a bit empty and vague, but I feel the need to say it anyway, is that if 25% of the population wants to be armed so they can be ready when the civil war kicks off, your country is already deep in the shit.
|
On May 26 2018 06:29 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2018 06:07 travis wrote:
Doing little to substantiate a position absolutely does not mean the position is weak. People can have whatever beliefs they want to have and not want to talk about them, but that does not make them weak. In your eyes, what does it take for a position to be strong? Can I just say I strongly believe the sun is composed of mayonnaise and I am totally cool thinking that? Is there no system we can use to judge the merits of the idea that the sun is mayonnaise? You seem to be roughly saying that every thought has value and I can't wrap my head around that. I think you need to justify that and explain why someone's belief that the sun is mayonnaise is worse than someone's belief that the sun is plasma.
My claim was that not substantiating a position does not make it weak, not that it made it strong. What it takes for a position to be strong is a weird and complicated question.
|
Kind of late, but I wanted to insert that being active duty does not guarantee you have your own house off base. By and large, you are on base. That is the reason we have so many and they are really large. The need to be able to respond to any kind of crisis mandates that you are on base in the military. There are military housing, but those are reserved for married personnel and those of sufficient rank. I'd wager 80% of the total military lives on base in some capacity. Also, just because you are military, you are not allowed to take any weapons you own, home. If you are stateside and own a home, you may have some weapons, but more than not, you won't have them.
Source: anecdotal.
|
On May 26 2018 06:48 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2018 06:29 Mohdoo wrote:On May 26 2018 06:07 travis wrote:
Doing little to substantiate a position absolutely does not mean the position is weak. People can have whatever beliefs they want to have and not want to talk about them, but that does not make them weak. In your eyes, what does it take for a position to be strong? Can I just say I strongly believe the sun is composed of mayonnaise and I am totally cool thinking that? Is there no system we can use to judge the merits of the idea that the sun is mayonnaise? You seem to be roughly saying that every thought has value and I can't wrap my head around that. I think you need to justify that and explain why someone's belief that the sun is mayonnaise is worse than someone's belief that the sun is plasma. My claim was that not substantiating a position does not make it weak, not that it made it strong. What it takes for a position to be strong is a weird and complicated question.
When a position comes to exist, does it start out as weak or strong? Does evidence and logic not play into the strength of a position? I don't think it should be much of a struggle to define what makes a position strong or weak.
|
On May 26 2018 06:48 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2018 06:29 Mohdoo wrote:On May 26 2018 06:07 travis wrote:
Doing little to substantiate a position absolutely does not mean the position is weak. People can have whatever beliefs they want to have and not want to talk about them, but that does not make them weak. In your eyes, what does it take for a position to be strong? Can I just say I strongly believe the sun is composed of mayonnaise and I am totally cool thinking that? Is there no system we can use to judge the merits of the idea that the sun is mayonnaise? You seem to be roughly saying that every thought has value and I can't wrap my head around that. I think you need to justify that and explain why someone's belief that the sun is mayonnaise is worse than someone's belief that the sun is plasma. My claim was that not substantiating a position does not make it weak, not that it made it strong. What it takes for a position to be strong is a weird and complicated question.
Some simple numbers would do a lot to help your argument and if that is not available, a known story that we could all research would also be helpful. I can comment on military procedures and the like because I was enlisted. I can also comment on the black american condition because, I am black. I can cite examples of either one, without necessarily providing hard numbers, but stories or reports that have been in the news or are easily accessed through a simple search online.
Giving some credible example is necessary to give you a solid foundation with which to debate. Otherwise, you are proclaiming opinion as fact and that won't slide with a lot of people.
Not coming down on you in particular, just trying to help clear things up a bit.
|
On May 26 2018 01:43 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2018 23:37 r.Evo wrote:On May 25 2018 19:52 evilfatsh1t wrote:On May 25 2018 18:07 Danglars wrote:On May 25 2018 17:28 ShambhalaWar wrote:On May 25 2018 16:59 PoulsenB wrote:On May 25 2018 12:58 Orome wrote:
The military rifles are taken home without ammunition, so that's a pretty misleading statement in the first place.
For all the befuddling American right-wing insistence that any type of gun control is the mother of all evil though, I'm almost equally annoyed by the lazy 'gun control would fix all problems' approach. Appears to me that the problematic culture the US has built around guns runs much deeper than just accessability. I'm all for better forms of gun control, but I can't help feel that the endless and superficial discussions around it prevent questions that are just as important. Why so many Americans on this forum (over the years) have seriously and proudly proclaimed their need and right to shoot any robbers or burglars for example (should said burglars ever appear). While I'm all for responsible and properly regulated gun ownership, this burglar thing has been boggling my mind as well. Even in Poland we have people advocating widespread access to guns on the basis of "I need to defend my home against burglars", but you basically never hear of cases where burglars entered a home when the owner was inside - usually the criminals strike when people are away on vacation or sth like that. For me it reeks of a kinda wild-west power fantasy (and maybe even insecurity - as Professor Farsworth once said, "who needs courage when you have a gun?"). Cool story in the US, another shooting just happened, and there was a guy outside with a gun... who drew his gun and confronted the shooter... then the shooter shot and killed him. End of story. Interesting contrast to the waffle house shooting, where someone without a gun stopped a shooter... My country is too stupid and bought out at the highest levels of power to actually do anything, even when children are getting shot and killed over and over and over again. It's truly fucking pathetic. Here's my suggestion, you remove the republican shills who are bought and payed for from congress, then change the laws... remove the payed for dems as well... but at least they aren't the ones defending all this gun bullshit. You'll have to remove the United States citizens that have darn good reasons to question the motives and scopes of the gun control activists and lobby. There's enough of them to unite behind new candidates and activist groups, should somehow the current shills get replaced in mass. I gather that some of these citizens are included in your opener of "My country is too stupid." I cheer and salute the American that stopped a bad guy with a gun by being a good guy with a gun. This NRA video is making the rounds. I think it makes a valuable point as it wraps up towards the end. I hope both sides can move towards mutual understanding and empathy and meet somewhere in the gap. I'm pretty pessimistic at this happening in the short term. https://twitter.com/NRATV/status/999714805333147650 edited lel. i retract my statements i will say that the NRA's analogy of media censorship is comparable to restriction of gun ownership is absolutely retarded. this chain of thought has been discussed to death on this thread already though so no further comments Personally I find both US gun culture abhorrent (massive fan of the Swiss approach there the more I learn about it. I like the idea of a well-regulated militia apparently) while also finding US media culture when it comes to mass shootings abhorrent. Seeing US coverage and German coverage side by side when it came to e.g. the 2016 Munich shooting was an eye-opener for me personally. I've been really damn glad we do things differently over here when it comes to both of these topics ever since. Hard to judge which is actually worse in practice, but when in doubt most nations have genuinely shitty media outlets at least attempting similar coverage while there is no nation with a similar gun culture anywhere on the globe. It's the mixture of seeing guns as amazing for the sake of it and as stuff that is used recreationally and media glorifying mass murderers that creates this absolutely toxic mixture in my opinion. On May 25 2018 23:34 superstartran wrote:On May 25 2018 09:41 WolfintheSheep wrote:On May 25 2018 08:08 superstartran wrote:On May 25 2018 06:21 Nixer wrote:On May 25 2018 05:38 superstartran wrote:On May 24 2018 20:54 Jockmcplop wrote:
So we have in Switzerland:
1: The ability of the police to check up on people with automatic weapons
2: Carry/conceal licenses for weapons
3: Criminal records mean you aren't allowed to own weapons, and they can be taken from you
4: Ownership/sale is illegal with exceptions (although from what I have read these are fairly loosely applied)
5: Specific permits to shoot weapons
Superstartran do you think applying some parts of the Swiss system to US law would be a good thing?
If so, which parts would you like to see applied to the US, and which parts wouldn't you?
It looks to me like this is a system that works well in Switzerland, although it has been designed for Switzerland and certainly wouldn't export particularly well. There's a cultural attitude at play where I would see this kind of system as very 'European' in nature. I'm not even sure what I mean by that, I know its vague but its a feeling I have.
However, if more gun control is being considered, America could certainly take some inspiration from these systems and laws. It's not just the system in place here; people don't realize that Switzerland already automatically has 200k-250k fully automatic military issue rifles at any given point in time, and yet you don't see any kind of mass shootings. Alot of this comes down to their culture surrounding firearms, and what the purpose of the firearm is used for. Yes, the system works, but the system only works if the culture and society in general accepts that system. Fairly certain they're converted into semi-automatic rifles. If they choose to purchase a rifle when they finish their service that is. There are currently 160k active duty soldiers, my bad. That still doesn't dispute the fact that there are a significant amount of fully automatic weapons floating around (not including the ones held in the hands of civilians). On May 25 2018 06:40 WolfintheSheep wrote:On May 25 2018 05:38 superstartran wrote:On May 24 2018 20:54 Jockmcplop wrote:
So we have in Switzerland:
1: The ability of the police to check up on people with automatic weapons
2: Carry/conceal licenses for weapons
3: Criminal records mean you aren't allowed to own weapons, and they can be taken from you
4: Ownership/sale is illegal with exceptions (although from what I have read these are fairly loosely applied)
5: Specific permits to shoot weapons
Superstartran do you think applying some parts of the Swiss system to US law would be a good thing?
If so, which parts would you like to see applied to the US, and which parts wouldn't you?
It looks to me like this is a system that works well in Switzerland, although it has been designed for Switzerland and certainly wouldn't export particularly well. There's a cultural attitude at play where I would see this kind of system as very 'European' in nature. I'm not even sure what I mean by that, I know its vague but its a feeling I have.
However, if more gun control is being considered, America could certainly take some inspiration from these systems and laws. It's not just the system in place here; people don't realize that Switzerland already automatically has 200k-250k fully automatic military issue rifles at any given point in time, and yet you don't see any kind of mass shootings. Alot of this comes down to their culture surrounding firearms, and what the purpose of the firearm is used for. Yes, the system works, but the system only works if the culture and society in general accepts that system. The reddit poster you linked even says the military rifles are converted to semi-auto. What part of 'active' duty do you not understand selective reader? How about you stop being such a selective writer before you start accusing others of anything? There are not 200k automatic military rifles "floating around" in Switzerland, any more than there are 7000 nukes floating around in the US. But why argue the actual argument when you can just ad homenin non stop? You still haven't addressed my point as to how Switzerland has a significant amount of fully automatic firearms floating around and mass shootings still don't occur. That's because they neither glorify mass murderers nor guns. e: Before r.Evo comes on here and says "NO YOU CAN'T IT'S HARD YOU HAVE TO FILL OUT ALL THIS PAPERWORK" Excuse me? I believe I've been very specific in that obtaining e.g. a fully automatic rifle to own it is deliberately comparatively easy in Switzerland (easy compared to e.g. Germany or most EU nations, hard compared to lots of US states), you might have accidentally misread that. If you're supportive of e.g. guns being taken away when crimes pop up in someone's record or the suspicion of domestic violence arises (which means all weapons need to be at least declared, all the way down to soft-airs), if you're cool with ammunition being strictly kept separate at all times and it being extremely heavily regulated when and where these fully automatic weapons can be fired then I think that's great and I fully agree with you with in seeing Switzerland as a great example to follow! Which of the Swiss regulations would you like to see implemented asap in the US? It's all the additional regulations and the attitude towards guns as weapons of war instead of recreational toys or self-defense weapons that results in an overall more healthy gun culture. You do realize the video I just posted is a guy with two fully automatic weapons with silencers and laser sights on them, all which are extremely heavily regulated in the United States of America. Your post makes it seem like it's almost impossible to even get one, which is the furthest thing from the truth. Guy in the video said he paid about $4000 USD for a fully automatic SD MP5, which in the U.S. because of the fully automatic weapons ban pre-1986ish (IIRC) it's something in the neighborhood of like 35k USD. The Swiss Gun laws would never pass in the U.S; there's no way gun control advocates would allow such easy access to things such as silencers, fully automatic weapons, and laser slights. Any of the gun control advocates here saying that "it would be ok" are bald face lying, because Plainsix and others just previously in this thread wanted to ban bump stocks themselves, so why would they suddenly be ok with fully automatic weapons. That's the real point I'm making; they are being hypocritical, and simply lying about their actual intentions. There's no intention here to actually try and make a healthier gun culture, improve gun control, lower crime rate, etc. All these guys are doing is trying to press for their agenda. Period. And none of that even addresses my actual point, which is that the vast majority of 'mass shooters' had zero records. No criminal history, no mental history, none of those things. They would have STILL had access to weapons, and likely would have had access to more dangerous weapons. That was the original point of me addressing Plainsix; he says "yeah that's fine" except just earlier in this thread he was totally against things like the AR-15, bumpstocks, and other things that he suddenly just agreed to. Just because you have a law, doesn't mean it will stop a bad guy.
So let me get this straight: You are against Swiss-style regulations in the US because you believe people who advocate for gun control would be against them?
You're genuinely trying to tell us you are against something simply because you believe people you disagree with would be against it?
If I put myself in the shoes of for example Plansix I would also argue in favor smaller stuff like banning bump stocks if that's all that's even on the table. I wouldn't believe anyone who argues the "pro-gun" side would ever agree to something as strict as the regulations Switzerland has in place when it comes to firearms or weapons in general. Part of the Swiss regulations is literally taking people's guns away when entries in a federal database occur. It includes any and all weapons, all the way down to soft-airs having to be registered with the state.
I'd expect someone who is afraid of "them taking our guns away" to argue anything to avoid getting these types of things on the table, even if it's something nonsensical such as: "I'm against that because people I disagree with would be against that and those who say otherwise must be lying."
PS: Your post makes it seem like it's almost impossible to even get one, which is the furthest thing from the truth. Let me quote myself again:
I believe I've been very specific in that obtaining e.g. a fully automatic rifle to own it is deliberately comparatively easy in Switzerland (easy compared to e.g. Germany or most EU nations, hard compared to lots of US states), you might have accidentally misread that. If I'm wrong and for example automatic rifles are actually hard to obtain and use in the US then feel free to simply correct me, I don't mind learning something.
|
On May 26 2018 05:23 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2018 01:43 superstartran wrote:On May 25 2018 13:08 KwarK wrote:
I've missed a few pages here but I'd just like to let superstar know that the UK is not drowning in knife fights. That's just not a thing. Funny, because I'm pretty sure that the U.K's crime rate is actually significantly higher than the U.S. even after you adjust for their definition of violent crime. If we just take it at face value like most of you do with gun statistics (without even readjusting definitions and how each government gathers statistics), you'll find that the U.K. actually has something like 2,000+ violent crimes per 100,000 residents, while the United States has like 466 violent crimes per 100,000 residents For anyone who was curious, his initial claim was that Brits are constantly knifing each other because they don't have guns. I know it wouldn't appear that way because he's doing the thing where he defends a different argument to his own but it was. He's repeating the same thing he did the last few times where he says something idiotic and then flatly denies it and insists that we were talking about something else, but on a forum where the posts are visible. Apparently we were talking about violent crime statistics and comparisons between the UK and the US, and not the epidemic of knife fighting that has, in his head, overtaken the lawns and playgrounds of England.
https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN04304
Oh yeah, I'm just making up shit. The UK doesn't have a knife epidemic or anything. Who's the idiot now?
On May 26 2018 07:22 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2018 01:43 superstartran wrote:On May 25 2018 23:37 r.Evo wrote:On May 25 2018 19:52 evilfatsh1t wrote:On May 25 2018 18:07 Danglars wrote:On May 25 2018 17:28 ShambhalaWar wrote:On May 25 2018 16:59 PoulsenB wrote:On May 25 2018 12:58 Orome wrote:
The military rifles are taken home without ammunition, so that's a pretty misleading statement in the first place.
For all the befuddling American right-wing insistence that any type of gun control is the mother of all evil though, I'm almost equally annoyed by the lazy 'gun control would fix all problems' approach. Appears to me that the problematic culture the US has built around guns runs much deeper than just accessability. I'm all for better forms of gun control, but I can't help feel that the endless and superficial discussions around it prevent questions that are just as important. Why so many Americans on this forum (over the years) have seriously and proudly proclaimed their need and right to shoot any robbers or burglars for example (should said burglars ever appear). While I'm all for responsible and properly regulated gun ownership, this burglar thing has been boggling my mind as well. Even in Poland we have people advocating widespread access to guns on the basis of "I need to defend my home against burglars", but you basically never hear of cases where burglars entered a home when the owner was inside - usually the criminals strike when people are away on vacation or sth like that. For me it reeks of a kinda wild-west power fantasy (and maybe even insecurity - as Professor Farsworth once said, "who needs courage when you have a gun?"). Cool story in the US, another shooting just happened, and there was a guy outside with a gun... who drew his gun and confronted the shooter... then the shooter shot and killed him. End of story. Interesting contrast to the waffle house shooting, where someone without a gun stopped a shooter... My country is too stupid and bought out at the highest levels of power to actually do anything, even when children are getting shot and killed over and over and over again. It's truly fucking pathetic. Here's my suggestion, you remove the republican shills who are bought and payed for from congress, then change the laws... remove the payed for dems as well... but at least they aren't the ones defending all this gun bullshit. You'll have to remove the United States citizens that have darn good reasons to question the motives and scopes of the gun control activists and lobby. There's enough of them to unite behind new candidates and activist groups, should somehow the current shills get replaced in mass. I gather that some of these citizens are included in your opener of "My country is too stupid." I cheer and salute the American that stopped a bad guy with a gun by being a good guy with a gun. This NRA video is making the rounds. I think it makes a valuable point as it wraps up towards the end. I hope both sides can move towards mutual understanding and empathy and meet somewhere in the gap. I'm pretty pessimistic at this happening in the short term. https://twitter.com/NRATV/status/999714805333147650 edited lel. i retract my statements i will say that the NRA's analogy of media censorship is comparable to restriction of gun ownership is absolutely retarded. this chain of thought has been discussed to death on this thread already though so no further comments Personally I find both US gun culture abhorrent (massive fan of the Swiss approach there the more I learn about it. I like the idea of a well-regulated militia apparently) while also finding US media culture when it comes to mass shootings abhorrent. Seeing US coverage and German coverage side by side when it came to e.g. the 2016 Munich shooting was an eye-opener for me personally. I've been really damn glad we do things differently over here when it comes to both of these topics ever since. Hard to judge which is actually worse in practice, but when in doubt most nations have genuinely shitty media outlets at least attempting similar coverage while there is no nation with a similar gun culture anywhere on the globe. It's the mixture of seeing guns as amazing for the sake of it and as stuff that is used recreationally and media glorifying mass murderers that creates this absolutely toxic mixture in my opinion. On May 25 2018 23:34 superstartran wrote:On May 25 2018 09:41 WolfintheSheep wrote:On May 25 2018 08:08 superstartran wrote:On May 25 2018 06:21 Nixer wrote:On May 25 2018 05:38 superstartran wrote:On May 24 2018 20:54 Jockmcplop wrote:
So we have in Switzerland:
1: The ability of the police to check up on people with automatic weapons
2: Carry/conceal licenses for weapons
3: Criminal records mean you aren't allowed to own weapons, and they can be taken from you
4: Ownership/sale is illegal with exceptions (although from what I have read these are fairly loosely applied)
5: Specific permits to shoot weapons
Superstartran do you think applying some parts of the Swiss system to US law would be a good thing?
If so, which parts would you like to see applied to the US, and which parts wouldn't you?
It looks to me like this is a system that works well in Switzerland, although it has been designed for Switzerland and certainly wouldn't export particularly well. There's a cultural attitude at play where I would see this kind of system as very 'European' in nature. I'm not even sure what I mean by that, I know its vague but its a feeling I have.
However, if more gun control is being considered, America could certainly take some inspiration from these systems and laws. It's not just the system in place here; people don't realize that Switzerland already automatically has 200k-250k fully automatic military issue rifles at any given point in time, and yet you don't see any kind of mass shootings. Alot of this comes down to their culture surrounding firearms, and what the purpose of the firearm is used for. Yes, the system works, but the system only works if the culture and society in general accepts that system. Fairly certain they're converted into semi-automatic rifles. If they choose to purchase a rifle when they finish their service that is. There are currently 160k active duty soldiers, my bad. That still doesn't dispute the fact that there are a significant amount of fully automatic weapons floating around (not including the ones held in the hands of civilians). On May 25 2018 06:40 WolfintheSheep wrote:On May 25 2018 05:38 superstartran wrote:On May 24 2018 20:54 Jockmcplop wrote:
So we have in Switzerland:
1: The ability of the police to check up on people with automatic weapons
2: Carry/conceal licenses for weapons
3: Criminal records mean you aren't allowed to own weapons, and they can be taken from you
4: Ownership/sale is illegal with exceptions (although from what I have read these are fairly loosely applied)
5: Specific permits to shoot weapons
Superstartran do you think applying some parts of the Swiss system to US law would be a good thing?
If so, which parts would you like to see applied to the US, and which parts wouldn't you?
It looks to me like this is a system that works well in Switzerland, although it has been designed for Switzerland and certainly wouldn't export particularly well. There's a cultural attitude at play where I would see this kind of system as very 'European' in nature. I'm not even sure what I mean by that, I know its vague but its a feeling I have.
However, if more gun control is being considered, America could certainly take some inspiration from these systems and laws. It's not just the system in place here; people don't realize that Switzerland already automatically has 200k-250k fully automatic military issue rifles at any given point in time, and yet you don't see any kind of mass shootings. Alot of this comes down to their culture surrounding firearms, and what the purpose of the firearm is used for. Yes, the system works, but the system only works if the culture and society in general accepts that system. The reddit poster you linked even says the military rifles are converted to semi-auto. What part of 'active' duty do you not understand selective reader? How about you stop being such a selective writer before you start accusing others of anything? There are not 200k automatic military rifles "floating around" in Switzerland, any more than there are 7000 nukes floating around in the US. But why argue the actual argument when you can just ad homenin non stop? You still haven't addressed my point as to how Switzerland has a significant amount of fully automatic firearms floating around and mass shootings still don't occur. That's because they neither glorify mass murderers nor guns. e: Before r.Evo comes on here and says "NO YOU CAN'T IT'S HARD YOU HAVE TO FILL OUT ALL THIS PAPERWORK" Excuse me? I believe I've been very specific in that obtaining e.g. a fully automatic rifle to own it is deliberately comparatively easy in Switzerland (easy compared to e.g. Germany or most EU nations, hard compared to lots of US states), you might have accidentally misread that. If you're supportive of e.g. guns being taken away when crimes pop up in someone's record or the suspicion of domestic violence arises (which means all weapons need to be at least declared, all the way down to soft-airs), if you're cool with ammunition being strictly kept separate at all times and it being extremely heavily regulated when and where these fully automatic weapons can be fired then I think that's great and I fully agree with you with in seeing Switzerland as a great example to follow! Which of the Swiss regulations would you like to see implemented asap in the US? It's all the additional regulations and the attitude towards guns as weapons of war instead of recreational toys or self-defense weapons that results in an overall more healthy gun culture. You do realize the video I just posted is a guy with two fully automatic weapons with silencers and laser sights on them, all which are extremely heavily regulated in the United States of America. Your post makes it seem like it's almost impossible to even get one, which is the furthest thing from the truth. Guy in the video said he paid about $4000 USD for a fully automatic SD MP5, which in the U.S. because of the fully automatic weapons ban pre-1986ish (IIRC) it's something in the neighborhood of like 35k USD. The Swiss Gun laws would never pass in the U.S; there's no way gun control advocates would allow such easy access to things such as silencers, fully automatic weapons, and laser slights. Any of the gun control advocates here saying that "it would be ok" are bald face lying, because Plainsix and others just previously in this thread wanted to ban bump stocks themselves, so why would they suddenly be ok with fully automatic weapons. That's the real point I'm making; they are being hypocritical, and simply lying about their actual intentions. There's no intention here to actually try and make a healthier gun culture, improve gun control, lower crime rate, etc. All these guys are doing is trying to press for their agenda. Period. And none of that even addresses my actual point, which is that the vast majority of 'mass shooters' had zero records. No criminal history, no mental history, none of those things. They would have STILL had access to weapons, and likely would have had access to more dangerous weapons. That was the original point of me addressing Plainsix; he says "yeah that's fine" except just earlier in this thread he was totally against things like the AR-15, bumpstocks, and other things that he suddenly just agreed to. Just because you have a law, doesn't mean it will stop a bad guy. So let me get this straight: You are against Swiss-style regulations in the US because you believe people who advocate for gun control would be against them? You're genuinely trying to tell us you are against something simply because you believe people you disagree with would be against it? If I put myself in the shoes of for example Plansix I would also argue in favor smaller stuff like banning bump stocks if that's all that's even on the table. I wouldn't believe anyone who argues the "pro-gun" side would ever agree to something as strict as the regulations Switzerland has in place when it comes to firearms or weapons in general. Part of the Swiss regulations is literally taking people's guns away when entries in a federal database occur. It includes any and all weapons, all the way down to soft-airs having to be registered with the state. I'd expect someone who is afraid of "them taking our guns away" to argue anything to avoid getting these types of things on the table, even if it's something nonsensical such as: "I'm against that because people I disagree with would be against that and those who say otherwise must be lying." PS: Show nested quote +Your post makes it seem like it's almost impossible to even get one, which is the furthest thing from the truth. Let me quote myself again: Show nested quote +I believe I've been very specific in that obtaining e.g. a fully automatic rifle to own it is deliberately comparatively easy in Switzerland (easy compared to e.g. Germany or most EU nations, hard compared to lots of US states), you might have accidentally misread that. If I'm wrong and for example automatic rifles are actually hard to obtain and use in the US then feel free to simply correct me, I don't mind learning something.
No, what I'm saying is that those who 'advocate' for Swiss Gun Reforms are arguing for them under a false pretense, because the same people who are advocating for them are the same people who argue against silencers, bump stocks, etc.
In order to obtain a fully automatic weapon in the U.S., it has to be a weapon made pre 1986. It has to be registered with the ATF, you must find a licensed dealer (which is incredibly difficult), have a metric ton of cash (most guns cost upwards 20k USD), pay a $200 application fee, wait for 9-12 months for your application to process and have multitudes of background checks, along with a multitude of regulations once you finally are able to make the purchase (such as local law enforcement being aware you have one, and that you have extremely strict transportation restrictions).
That's the basic gist of it. If the ATF even sniffs there's something wrong, they deny your application and you have to try again.
|
On May 26 2018 07:22 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2018 01:43 superstartran wrote:On May 25 2018 23:37 r.Evo wrote:On May 25 2018 19:52 evilfatsh1t wrote:On May 25 2018 18:07 Danglars wrote:On May 25 2018 17:28 ShambhalaWar wrote:On May 25 2018 16:59 PoulsenB wrote:On May 25 2018 12:58 Orome wrote:
The military rifles are taken home without ammunition, so that's a pretty misleading statement in the first place.
For all the befuddling American right-wing insistence that any type of gun control is the mother of all evil though, I'm almost equally annoyed by the lazy 'gun control would fix all problems' approach. Appears to me that the problematic culture the US has built around guns runs much deeper than just accessability. I'm all for better forms of gun control, but I can't help feel that the endless and superficial discussions around it prevent questions that are just as important. Why so many Americans on this forum (over the years) have seriously and proudly proclaimed their need and right to shoot any robbers or burglars for example (should said burglars ever appear). While I'm all for responsible and properly regulated gun ownership, this burglar thing has been boggling my mind as well. Even in Poland we have people advocating widespread access to guns on the basis of "I need to defend my home against burglars", but you basically never hear of cases where burglars entered a home when the owner was inside - usually the criminals strike when people are away on vacation or sth like that. For me it reeks of a kinda wild-west power fantasy (and maybe even insecurity - as Professor Farsworth once said, "who needs courage when you have a gun?"). Cool story in the US, another shooting just happened, and there was a guy outside with a gun... who drew his gun and confronted the shooter... then the shooter shot and killed him. End of story. Interesting contrast to the waffle house shooting, where someone without a gun stopped a shooter... My country is too stupid and bought out at the highest levels of power to actually do anything, even when children are getting shot and killed over and over and over again. It's truly fucking pathetic. Here's my suggestion, you remove the republican shills who are bought and payed for from congress, then change the laws... remove the payed for dems as well... but at least they aren't the ones defending all this gun bullshit. You'll have to remove the United States citizens that have darn good reasons to question the motives and scopes of the gun control activists and lobby. There's enough of them to unite behind new candidates and activist groups, should somehow the current shills get replaced in mass. I gather that some of these citizens are included in your opener of "My country is too stupid." I cheer and salute the American that stopped a bad guy with a gun by being a good guy with a gun. This NRA video is making the rounds. I think it makes a valuable point as it wraps up towards the end. I hope both sides can move towards mutual understanding and empathy and meet somewhere in the gap. I'm pretty pessimistic at this happening in the short term. https://twitter.com/NRATV/status/999714805333147650 edited lel. i retract my statements i will say that the NRA's analogy of media censorship is comparable to restriction of gun ownership is absolutely retarded. this chain of thought has been discussed to death on this thread already though so no further comments Personally I find both US gun culture abhorrent (massive fan of the Swiss approach there the more I learn about it. I like the idea of a well-regulated militia apparently) while also finding US media culture when it comes to mass shootings abhorrent. Seeing US coverage and German coverage side by side when it came to e.g. the 2016 Munich shooting was an eye-opener for me personally. I've been really damn glad we do things differently over here when it comes to both of these topics ever since. Hard to judge which is actually worse in practice, but when in doubt most nations have genuinely shitty media outlets at least attempting similar coverage while there is no nation with a similar gun culture anywhere on the globe. It's the mixture of seeing guns as amazing for the sake of it and as stuff that is used recreationally and media glorifying mass murderers that creates this absolutely toxic mixture in my opinion. On May 25 2018 23:34 superstartran wrote:On May 25 2018 09:41 WolfintheSheep wrote:On May 25 2018 08:08 superstartran wrote:On May 25 2018 06:21 Nixer wrote:On May 25 2018 05:38 superstartran wrote:On May 24 2018 20:54 Jockmcplop wrote:
So we have in Switzerland:
1: The ability of the police to check up on people with automatic weapons
2: Carry/conceal licenses for weapons
3: Criminal records mean you aren't allowed to own weapons, and they can be taken from you
4: Ownership/sale is illegal with exceptions (although from what I have read these are fairly loosely applied)
5: Specific permits to shoot weapons
Superstartran do you think applying some parts of the Swiss system to US law would be a good thing?
If so, which parts would you like to see applied to the US, and which parts wouldn't you?
It looks to me like this is a system that works well in Switzerland, although it has been designed for Switzerland and certainly wouldn't export particularly well. There's a cultural attitude at play where I would see this kind of system as very 'European' in nature. I'm not even sure what I mean by that, I know its vague but its a feeling I have.
However, if more gun control is being considered, America could certainly take some inspiration from these systems and laws. It's not just the system in place here; people don't realize that Switzerland already automatically has 200k-250k fully automatic military issue rifles at any given point in time, and yet you don't see any kind of mass shootings. Alot of this comes down to their culture surrounding firearms, and what the purpose of the firearm is used for. Yes, the system works, but the system only works if the culture and society in general accepts that system. Fairly certain they're converted into semi-automatic rifles. If they choose to purchase a rifle when they finish their service that is. There are currently 160k active duty soldiers, my bad. That still doesn't dispute the fact that there are a significant amount of fully automatic weapons floating around (not including the ones held in the hands of civilians). On May 25 2018 06:40 WolfintheSheep wrote:On May 25 2018 05:38 superstartran wrote:On May 24 2018 20:54 Jockmcplop wrote:
So we have in Switzerland:
1: The ability of the police to check up on people with automatic weapons
2: Carry/conceal licenses for weapons
3: Criminal records mean you aren't allowed to own weapons, and they can be taken from you
4: Ownership/sale is illegal with exceptions (although from what I have read these are fairly loosely applied)
5: Specific permits to shoot weapons
Superstartran do you think applying some parts of the Swiss system to US law would be a good thing?
If so, which parts would you like to see applied to the US, and which parts wouldn't you?
It looks to me like this is a system that works well in Switzerland, although it has been designed for Switzerland and certainly wouldn't export particularly well. There's a cultural attitude at play where I would see this kind of system as very 'European' in nature. I'm not even sure what I mean by that, I know its vague but its a feeling I have.
However, if more gun control is being considered, America could certainly take some inspiration from these systems and laws. It's not just the system in place here; people don't realize that Switzerland already automatically has 200k-250k fully automatic military issue rifles at any given point in time, and yet you don't see any kind of mass shootings. Alot of this comes down to their culture surrounding firearms, and what the purpose of the firearm is used for. Yes, the system works, but the system only works if the culture and society in general accepts that system. The reddit poster you linked even says the military rifles are converted to semi-auto. What part of 'active' duty do you not understand selective reader? How about you stop being such a selective writer before you start accusing others of anything? There are not 200k automatic military rifles "floating around" in Switzerland, any more than there are 7000 nukes floating around in the US. But why argue the actual argument when you can just ad homenin non stop? You still haven't addressed my point as to how Switzerland has a significant amount of fully automatic firearms floating around and mass shootings still don't occur. That's because they neither glorify mass murderers nor guns. e: Before r.Evo comes on here and says "NO YOU CAN'T IT'S HARD YOU HAVE TO FILL OUT ALL THIS PAPERWORK" Excuse me? I believe I've been very specific in that obtaining e.g. a fully automatic rifle to own it is deliberately comparatively easy in Switzerland (easy compared to e.g. Germany or most EU nations, hard compared to lots of US states), you might have accidentally misread that. If you're supportive of e.g. guns being taken away when crimes pop up in someone's record or the suspicion of domestic violence arises (which means all weapons need to be at least declared, all the way down to soft-airs), if you're cool with ammunition being strictly kept separate at all times and it being extremely heavily regulated when and where these fully automatic weapons can be fired then I think that's great and I fully agree with you with in seeing Switzerland as a great example to follow! Which of the Swiss regulations would you like to see implemented asap in the US? It's all the additional regulations and the attitude towards guns as weapons of war instead of recreational toys or self-defense weapons that results in an overall more healthy gun culture. You do realize the video I just posted is a guy with two fully automatic weapons with silencers and laser sights on them, all which are extremely heavily regulated in the United States of America. Your post makes it seem like it's almost impossible to even get one, which is the furthest thing from the truth. Guy in the video said he paid about $4000 USD for a fully automatic SD MP5, which in the U.S. because of the fully automatic weapons ban pre-1986ish (IIRC) it's something in the neighborhood of like 35k USD. The Swiss Gun laws would never pass in the U.S; there's no way gun control advocates would allow such easy access to things such as silencers, fully automatic weapons, and laser slights. Any of the gun control advocates here saying that "it would be ok" are bald face lying, because Plainsix and others just previously in this thread wanted to ban bump stocks themselves, so why would they suddenly be ok with fully automatic weapons. That's the real point I'm making; they are being hypocritical, and simply lying about their actual intentions. There's no intention here to actually try and make a healthier gun culture, improve gun control, lower crime rate, etc. All these guys are doing is trying to press for their agenda. Period. And none of that even addresses my actual point, which is that the vast majority of 'mass shooters' had zero records. No criminal history, no mental history, none of those things. They would have STILL had access to weapons, and likely would have had access to more dangerous weapons. That was the original point of me addressing Plainsix; he says "yeah that's fine" except just earlier in this thread he was totally against things like the AR-15, bumpstocks, and other things that he suddenly just agreed to. Just because you have a law, doesn't mean it will stop a bad guy. So let me get this straight: You are against Swiss-style regulations in the US because you believe people who advocate for gun control would be against them? You're genuinely trying to tell us you are against something simply because you believe people you disagree with would be against it? If I put myself in the shoes of for example Plansix I would also argue in favor smaller stuff like banning bump stocks if that's all that's even on the table. I wouldn't believe anyone who argues the "pro-gun" side would ever agree to something as strict as the regulations Switzerland has in place when it comes to firearms or weapons in general. Part of the Swiss regulations is literally taking people's guns away when entries in a federal database occur. It includes any and all weapons, all the way down to soft-airs having to be registered with the state. I'd expect someone who is afraid of "them taking our guns away" to argue anything to avoid getting these types of things on the table, even if it's something nonsensical such as: "I'm against that because people I disagree with would be against that and those who say otherwise must be lying." PS: Show nested quote +Your post makes it seem like it's almost impossible to even get one, which is the furthest thing from the truth. Let me quote myself again: Show nested quote +I believe I've been very specific in that obtaining e.g. a fully automatic rifle to own it is deliberately comparatively easy in Switzerland (easy compared to e.g. Germany or most EU nations, hard compared to lots of US states), you might have accidentally misread that. If I'm wrong and for example automatic rifles are actually hard to obtain and use in the US then feel free to simply correct me, I don't mind learning something.
The only fully auto weapons I know of in the US are military grade. Civvies cannot possess them unless they already have them, had them before the assault weapon ban, or made them themselves. I don't think you can even get them at trade shows (will ask my sister's boyfriend who is probably more of a pro-gun advocate than super).
|
The problem with the his argument is that he assumes I have specific stances on what guns should or should not be available. Or that I am for or against some types of guns laws over others.
The reality is I will take ANY update to the US gun laws, state or federal. Any change would be preferable to the stale mate. The Swiss gun laws sound awesome. If people can get automatic weapons, but all those other changes get put in place, bring it on. People can have browning machine guns if I get a background check system like the Swiss.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
