|
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. |
United States24768 Posts
On May 28 2018 10:15 evilfatsh1t wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2018 10:05 micronesia wrote:On May 28 2018 10:02 KwarK wrote:
I refuse to accept that half of Americans don't know that guns are used for killing things. I support your decision to refuse to agree with that straw man argument. Most Americans know that guns are used for killing things. Possibly 100/100 randoms. I don't think they would respond to the original question the way it was asserted though. 50-75% might. edit: We don't have valid data to point to here so it's really just a matter of agreeing to disagree once it's clear what the disagreement even is. im not sure why youre arguing that 100/100 people probably wouldnt answer exactly how i said they would. it wasnt really my main point.... as kwark has been pointing out, the point of my statement was that the NRA's claim (or maybe its just SST's claim) that guns "are not a tool for killing" is ridiculous. even more hilarious is the fact that these guys are supposed experts and they are the main body in relation to firearms. the 100/100 example was merely a hyperbole to make my stance. even in australia i could probably find some idiot who thinks guns are for entertainment
In part this discussion was started because SST used some poor wording, although I focused only on the wording you chose. It seems like you are willing to withdraw the 'hyperbole' and just generally stick to your position that the NRA viewpoint is delusional. Even if I don't agree with you, since you aren't supporting your position with something that seems completely wrong to me, I won't jump in anymore to object.
|
On May 28 2018 10:18 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2018 10:17 Sermokala wrote:
Is the argument we're having over the argument that guns are "only a tool for killing"? I don't think so; mostly it's just a typical highly pedantic argument that's happening; quibbling over some precise word choices, and nothing more. the important thing is we finally get a page without startran.
It's amazing how that happens when people don't reply to him.
|
On May 28 2018 10:29 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2018 10:18 zlefin wrote:On May 28 2018 10:17 Sermokala wrote:
Is the argument we're having over the argument that guns are "only a tool for killing"? I don't think so; mostly it's just a typical highly pedantic argument that's happening; quibbling over some precise word choices, and nothing more. the important thing is we finally get a page without startran. It's amazing how that happens when people don't reply to him.
or it's because he's just not around to post nonsense at the moment. either way works for me.
|
United States43902 Posts
On May 28 2018 10:13 micronesia wrote:
It's pedantry if I'm objecting because I think one of out 10,000 people will answer a different way. It's not pedantry if I'm objecting because I think 1/3 people will answer a different way, despite the strong claim that roughly 100/100 will answer the stated way. Your position seems to be that it really is roughly 100/100 that will answer the way evilfatsh1t did. I think you are wrong but since I don't have applicable non-anecdotal data we can only agree to disagree at this point.
My position is that the expression that everyone thinks that way is irrelevant to the validity of the underlying claim. Whether or not you can find someone who disagrees with the claim isn't important to the discussion if you yourself aren't disputing the claim.
|
United States24768 Posts
edit: wait let me not continue on a pedantic discussion forever: It's pretty simple. Someone said something that I think was wrong. I told them it was wrong. They withdrew it because they didn't think it was necessary. The end.
|
This whole gun debate is a frivolous smokescreen for the real issue, which is that the authoritarian governments around the world (including the gov't of the ostensibly free USA) violate the inalienable freedoms of their citizens to own most of the tools necessary to ensure their freedom, such as stealth bombers, surface to air missiles, nukes, etc. How else are we to defend against tyrannical governments? Personally, I think the NRA, knowingly or not, is just a puppet the US goverment uses to keep its citizens thoroughly under-armed and under-prepared for when Uncle Sam decides to kick your door down with its drone strikes and other fancy taxpayer-funded toys while you're pathetically huddled in the corner with your familiy clutching a measly little AR-15...they'll have to pry the enriched plutonium from my cold, dead hands.
|
micronesia, what do you think of the swiss system for America? I understand that it's not going to be implemented tomorrow of course but do you think it's something most gun owners could get behind?
|
United States24768 Posts
I don't know much about how Swiss gun laws work and I've been staying out of that discussion. However, I think it's very hard to say what gun owners could get behind, or what outspoken gun control advocates could get behind. It seems like any attempt to legislate changes in either direction gets defeated by people on both sides of the issue. If a company designs a gun that shoots nuclear waste and starts selling it, some lawmakers will introduce a bipartisan bill to prevent civilians from owning that gun. A poll will show 96% of Americans strongly agree with fully banning such a new weapon. Some politician will add an amendment that increases the scope of the law to also ban bayonets on long guns and suppressors on 50 caliber anti-material rifles. Yet another politician will argue he/she can't vote for this bill unless it also corrects some of the major problems with enforcing current laws. Disagreements will suddenly get very personal, and before you know it the law won't have enough votes to pass. As people dig in further into their entrenched positions, it only gets harder to escape this vicious cycle.
|
But the resolution is quite simple: Restrict gun-ownership until the point the problem goes away or you can't restrict anymore. The US has a unique problem and while there are children getting murdered on a daily basis by loonies, their politicians are too toothless or just straight up too corrupt to go for a real change.
There is no reason to defend your home with a gun at any point. Your home is an object, you can repair or entirely rebuild it. Your insurance is gonna get you a new TV with a few more inches than the one that got robbed, literally everything can be replaced BUT the massive EGO that seems to live within almost every American I've ever encountered, be it online or offline.
So, short-term solution: Impose restrictions on gun-ownership which make it such a hassle to legally obtain one, pretty much everyone but the people who require a gun for professional usage are not gonna go for it.
Long-term solution: Increase basic education (absolutely horrible in the US) and get rid of those big egos.
Easy.
|
Northern Ireland22212 Posts
On May 29 2018 23:36 [DUF]MethodMan wrote:
But the resolution is quite simple: Restrict gun-ownership until the point the problem goes away or you can't restrict anymore. The US has a unique problem and while there are children getting murdered on a daily basis by loonies, their politicians are too toothless or just straight up too corrupt to go for a real change.
There is no reason to defend your home with a gun at any point. Your home is an object, you can repair or entirely rebuild it. Your insurance is gonna get you a new TV with a few more inches than the one that got robbed, literally everything can be replaced BUT the massive EGO that seems to live within almost every American I've ever encountered, be it online or offline.
So, short-term solution: Impose restrictions on gun-ownership which make it such a hassle to legally obtain one, pretty much everyone but the people who require a gun for professional usage are not gonna go for it.
Long-term solution: Increase basic education (absolutely horrible in the US) and get rid of those big egos.
Easy.
what a clueless post. you are defending your home, which by extension includes your own person and that of your family.
|
Yeah, all those burglars that instead of wanting to rob you actually want to shoot you.
You know what kind of advice police gives here? Leave the house, call the police, wait.
But getting in a gunfight with a criminal is probably the better way to do it. Yehaaa!
|
On May 29 2018 23:48 ahswtini wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2018 23:36 [DUF]MethodMan wrote:
But the resolution is quite simple: Restrict gun-ownership until the point the problem goes away or you can't restrict anymore. The US has a unique problem and while there are children getting murdered on a daily basis by loonies, their politicians are too toothless or just straight up too corrupt to go for a real change.
There is no reason to defend your home with a gun at any point. Your home is an object, you can repair or entirely rebuild it. Your insurance is gonna get you a new TV with a few more inches than the one that got robbed, literally everything can be replaced BUT the massive EGO that seems to live within almost every American I've ever encountered, be it online or offline.
So, short-term solution: Impose restrictions on gun-ownership which make it such a hassle to legally obtain one, pretty much everyone but the people who require a gun for professional usage are not gonna go for it.
Long-term solution: Increase basic education (absolutely horrible in the US) and get rid of those big egos.
Easy. what a clueless post. you are defending your home, which by extension includes your own person and that of your family.
Does a robber threaten your life? Or do we call robbers robbers because they do indeed, just rob people? But please, spout more of the bullshit that lead to an entire country being basically paranoid about home invasions and people wanting to kill them. The US will have to deal with this problem on their own, but as a European, I will speak up against the madness that is the amount of arms which are literally "floating around", to quote the guy who thinks people in the UK knife each other all day, there and aren't downgraded or locked away like in Switzerland.
Pretty clueless to think someone who is robbing you, which will almost always happen when you're not present anyway, is after your life rofl. Stop watching too many Hollywood movies.
|
And much of the US is rural with few police. My home town had 2 part time cops. And depending on what part of the country you live in, there are some gnarly wild animals too. Owning a fire arm for those purposes is perfectly reasonable.
|
But what if you're upstairs playing Diablo III with your headphones on and three hooligans who just escaped from your local prison decide to break into your house and gang rape your wife downstairs? (the stories I read on Reddit) Only a GUN would resolve that situation in expedient fashion don't you think.
+ Show Spoiler +Or maybe try locking your doors at night for starters *shrug
|
Also if you have the gun, you can tell the home invaders to leave and they just might leave. Most people robbing houses don’t want to get shot.
|
On May 29 2018 23:57 Plansix wrote:
And much of the US is rural with few police. My home town had 2 part time cops. And depending on what part of the country you live in, there are some gnarly wild animals too. Owning a fire arm for those purposes is perfectly reasonable.
Easily agreed on, get a non-automatic rifle and fuck up those gnarly wild animals from range like a true American hero. Keep said rifle in a locked compartment of your home only you have the key to, have that key on you all the time and in case of loss, report to the police. Noone ever needed a fully automatic weapon to kill an animal. As for the other cases and like said above already, just lock your fucking door like everyone in the rest of the world does? Doors, walls and all that stuff, made for protecting you inside with no need for a weapon. Somebody breaks your protection? Go away, call the police. Does he come into your bedroom and threatens your or your loved ones lives? Go for it, shoot the fucker in the face. But I bet your wife would appreciate not having blood on her furniture or police investigation or, or, or.
Pretty much EVERYTHING other than killing or threatening to kill (which a pulled gun always is) another human is ALWAYS the better choice, UNLESS your own life is in danger. No, your life is not in danger as soon as someone breaks into your house. 100% of all burglars will run as soon as they notice someone is in the house. Oh wait, you might have pulled a gun on them and they now feel their life threatened, what could go wrong? Hm.
On May 30 2018 00:01 Plansix wrote:
Also if you have the gun, you can tell the home invaders to leave and they just might leave. Most people robbing houses don’t want to get shot.
Fun fact, not having a gun will also have the same effect. I sure as shit wouldn't show my face if I noticed somebody in my house. I live here, I built it, I know it inside out. I just cut electricity and let him try to find his way in the dark all the while im telling him to fuck off or live with retaliation from my side and probably feel pretty badass about myself. But as soon as I see a weapon on them, I'm fucking gone and they can have what they want.
|
On May 29 2018 23:57 Plansix wrote:
And much of the US is rural with few police. My home town had 2 part time cops. And depending on what part of the country you live in, there are some gnarly wild animals too. Owning a fire arm for those purposes is perfectly reasonable.
I just googled for the actually deadliest animals in the US.
Basically:
Cows, Horses, Dogs, Various Insects/Spiders... The first animal that shows up and you would reasonably use a gun against are Crocodiles/Alligators.
Keep in mind that actual fatalities are extremly rare. Guns do nothing for your savety but strenghten your ego.
|
You're never going to do anything in the US if you question defensive use, so my advice would be not to do that. Besides, defensive use isn't a huge problem that requires fixing. If people disagree with you on how to deal with robberies in their homes, well okay, I'll probably be on your side, but the country doesn't change a whole ton if our side wins that argument.
Universal background checks, carry permits much harder to get, now those are ideas that don't threaten the "reasonable" arguments in favor of gun ownership (by that I don't mean that I find them reasonable, just that they are made by honest people, as opposed to "the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" for example) and could already have a decent impact on the culture.
|
On May 30 2018 00:12 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2018 23:57 Plansix wrote:
And much of the US is rural with few police. My home town had 2 part time cops. And depending on what part of the country you live in, there are some gnarly wild animals too. Owning a fire arm for those purposes is perfectly reasonable. I just googled for the actually deadliest animals in the US. Basically: Cows, Horses, Dogs, Various Insects/Spiders... The first animal that shows up and you would reasonably use a gun against are Crocodiles/Alligators. Keep in mind that actual fatalities are extremly rare. Guns do nothing for your savety but strenghten your ego.
My guy, I’ve dealt with some gnarly raccoons that made me seriously considering getting a .22 to deal with them. Wild animals can do a lot of damage that you will totally live through. And I live in the less wild part of the US where you won’t encounter things like moose.
|
On May 30 2018 00:12 Velr wrote:
Guns do nothing for your savety but strenghten your ego.
This is literally everything there is to the discussion.
On May 30 2018 00:17 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2018 00:12 Velr wrote:On May 29 2018 23:57 Plansix wrote:
And much of the US is rural with few police. My home town had 2 part time cops. And depending on what part of the country you live in, there are some gnarly wild animals too. Owning a fire arm for those purposes is perfectly reasonable. I just googled for the actually deadliest animals in the US. Basically: Cows, Horses, Dogs, Various Insects/Spiders... The first animal that shows up and you would reasonably use a gun against are Crocodiles/Alligators. Keep in mind that actual fatalities are extremly rare. Guns do nothing for your savety but strenghten your ego. My guy, I’ve dealt with some gnarly raccoons that made me seriously considering getting a .22 to deal with them. Wild animals can do a lot of damage that you will totally live through. And I live in the less wild part of the US where you won’t encounter things lie moose.
Mate, I feel already bad for quoting you, since you seem to represent the more reasonable US-citizen on this issue, but you still don't get how you're using fake arguments provided by the likes of NRA and such to justify the absurd fascination the US has with guns. You consider getting a gun, because of raccoons. I can't wrap my head around shit like this. Nature isn't made for you to conquer it, you're supposed to live along with it. So get the fuck out of natural habitats of animals, especially during mating season, keep to your natural habitat, problem solved. Shooting a fucking raccoon, what the fuck.
I just googled "raccoon threat" and the first site that showed up is this http://getraccoonsout.com/are-raccoons-dangerous/
Even these people, who don't want you to mistake them for animal lovers seeing the title of the website, come to the conclusion, the best way to avoid trouble with raccoons is using your fucking head instead of a gun. Which, by the way, could and should be applied to any situation revolving around gun usage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
