|
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 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.
Or tackle the problem of school shootings that also doesn’t prevent willing citizens to defend their property and family with deadly force. Homeowners are not arming themselves to glory in shooting robbers, but that in fact less houses might be robbed. This is particularly true in rural communities (and certain urban settings with long police response times, at certain periods).
I know it’s beating a dead horse at this point, but the key to negotiating the “common-sense gun reforms,” is to surrender the desire to prevent law abiding citizens from obtaining a gun and protest against “any reason to defend your home with a gun at any point). Gun owners will simply look at the loudmouths and conclude (sometimes rightly conclude depending on the issue) that the proposed changes are simply stepping stones to backwards repeal of the second amendment. You can’t placate a side that won’t stop agitating for more gun control until all gun-related tragedies cease.
|
Note to self... Do a youtube session on "fierce racoon attacks"  .
For europeans racoons are really not an issue atm, they are mainly cute  ... Apparantly some exist but the population is still small enough to keep them in check but the few people affected truely hate them.
|
Our daily knife fight training prepares us for wildlife.
|
|
|
On May 30 2018 01:56 Danglars 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. Or tackle the problem of school shootings that also doesn’t prevent willing citizens to defend their property and family with deadly force. Homeowners are not arming themselves to glory in shooting robbers, but that in fact less houses might be robbed. This is particularly true in rural communities (and certain urban settings with long police response times, at certain periods). I know it’s beating a dead horse at this point, but the key to negotiating the “common-sense gun reforms,” is to surrender the desire to prevent law abiding citizens from obtaining a gun and protest against “any reason to defend your home with a gun at any point). Gun owners will simply look at the loudmouths and conclude (sometimes rightly conclude depending on the issue) that the proposed changes are simply stepping stones to backwards repeal of the second amendment. You can’t placate a side that won’t stop agitating for more gun control until all gun-related tragedies cease.
What you're saying is basically give gun-owners all the rights they want or let them keep any they want. What you're saying is basically not to engage in arguments with gun-owners. What you're saying is basically "fuck you". The Second Amendment was written when it was necessary. Do you still have civil war over there? Can you stop being intellectually lazy and at least come up with an actual argument for gun-ownership? Raccoons might be annoying, but they're not deadly, we've reached this conclusion a page ago. So no, there is no argument for owning a gun because of wild animals around the area you live in. You even might wanna consider moving if it is so dangerous. We've had home invasions, but still no. Experts on the matter tell you to rather leave and call police than stand your ground. No valid reason to be found here. Enlighten me, please.
Or is the dick prosthesis just too important to give up and you don't even know why?
Oh wait, gotta tackle that school shooting problem: Easy access to firearms. Done. Easy.
|
Woah there, there are sections of the US that have large wild animals. Washington state, you get moose, large bears and not a lot of people around.
|
On May 30 2018 02:17 Plansix wrote:
Woah there, there are sections of the US that have large wild animals. Washington state, you get moose, large bears and not a lot of people around.
Taking a wild guess here, but doesn't that indicate to any sane person, that living in such an area is maybe not for the best? I don't doubt a second there is wildlife in the US that can be frightening and believe me, I'd probably shit myself at night if I lived there. I just see what I see and that is technologically apt, internationally thinking and academically trained people from my own generation seem to not think of it as a problem, when you live in a place where people go on random shooting sprees every day or how that could correlate with the level of gun-ownership there.
I will apologize if I offended you in any way, I'm not especially good at getting points across without sounding aggressive. But I truly want to know what is behind this line of thinking.
|
On May 30 2018 02:12 [DUF]MethodMan wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2018 01:56 Danglars wrote: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. Or tackle the problem of school shootings that also doesn’t prevent willing citizens to defend their property and family with deadly force. Homeowners are not arming themselves to glory in shooting robbers, but that in fact less houses might be robbed. This is particularly true in rural communities (and certain urban settings with long police response times, at certain periods). I know it’s beating a dead horse at this point, but the key to negotiating the “common-sense gun reforms,” is to surrender the desire to prevent law abiding citizens from obtaining a gun and protest against “any reason to defend your home with a gun at any point). Gun owners will simply look at the loudmouths and conclude (sometimes rightly conclude depending on the issue) that the proposed changes are simply stepping stones to backwards repeal of the second amendment. You can’t placate a side that won’t stop agitating for more gun control until all gun-related tragedies cease. What you're saying is basically give gun-owners all the rights they want or let them keep any they want.
Just the second amendment guaranteed right to own and use arms. This right will be maligned by partisan idiots as "all the rights they want."What you're saying is basically not to engage in arguments with gun-owners. What you're saying is basically "fuck you". The Second Amendment was written when it was necessary. I feel very little need to actually offer arguments if you insist on telling me what I'm saying. Do a little more reading and a little less willful misinterpretation.Do you still have civil war over there? Can you stop being intellectually lazy and at least come up with an actual argument for gun-ownership? Raccoons might be annoying, but they're not deadly, we've reached this conclusion a page ago. So no, there is no argument for owning a gun because of wild animals around the area you live in. You even might wanna consider moving if it is so dangerous. We've had home invasions, but still no. Experts on the matter tell you to rather leave and call police than stand your ground. No valid reason to be found here. Enlighten me, please.
You can take up raccoons with Plansix. For basic police response times in rural areas, and some urban where police are unwilling or overtaxed, refer to actually addressing that point in the post you quoted.Or is the dick prosthesis just too important to give up and you don't even know why?
Oh wait, gotta tackle that school shooting problem: Easy access to firearms. Done. Easy.
If calling gun rights as a "dick prothesis" is your game, I wonder why you even pretend to offer intellectual arguments.
The basic point is your main game is insults and slander.
When somebody makes points against, you dismiss them, and somehow still assume the fact that you dismissed them means they don't exist.
|
On May 30 2018 02:25 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2018 02:12 [DUF]MethodMan wrote:On May 30 2018 01:56 Danglars wrote: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. Or tackle the problem of school shootings that also doesn’t prevent willing citizens to defend their property and family with deadly force. Homeowners are not arming themselves to glory in shooting robbers, but that in fact less houses might be robbed. This is particularly true in rural communities (and certain urban settings with long police response times, at certain periods). I know it’s beating a dead horse at this point, but the key to negotiating the “common-sense gun reforms,” is to surrender the desire to prevent law abiding citizens from obtaining a gun and protest against “any reason to defend your home with a gun at any point). Gun owners will simply look at the loudmouths and conclude (sometimes rightly conclude depending on the issue) that the proposed changes are simply stepping stones to backwards repeal of the second amendment. You can’t placate a side that won’t stop agitating for more gun control until all gun-related tragedies cease. What you're saying is basically give gun-owners all the rights they want or let them keep any they want. Just the second amendment guaranteed right to own and use arms. This right will be maligned by partisan idiots as "all the rights they want." Show nested quote +What you're saying is basically not to engage in arguments with gun-owners. What you're saying is basically "fuck you". The Second Amendment was written when it was necessary. I feel very little need to actually offer arguments if you insist on telling me what I'm saying. Do a little more reading and a little less willful misinterpretation. Show nested quote +Do you still have civil war over there? Can you stop being intellectually lazy and at least come up with an actual argument for gun-ownership? Raccoons might be annoying, but they're not deadly, we've reached this conclusion a page ago. So no, there is no argument for owning a gun because of wild animals around the area you live in. You even might wanna consider moving if it is so dangerous. We've had home invasions, but still no. Experts on the matter tell you to rather leave and call police than stand your ground. No valid reason to be found here. Enlighten me, please. You can take up raccoons with Plansix. For basic police response times in rural areas, and some urban where police are unwilling or overtaxed, refer to actually addressing that point in the post you quoted. Show nested quote +Or is the dick prosthesis just too important to give up and you don't even know why?
Oh wait, gotta tackle that school shooting problem: Easy access to firearms. Done. Easy. If calling gun rights as a "dick prothesis" is your game, I wonder why you even pretend to offer intellectual arguments. The basic point is your main game is insults and slander. When somebody makes points against, you dismiss them, and somehow still assume the fact that you dismissed them means they don't exist.
Police response time: Employ more police.
Dick prosthesis: Reference to a gun, not gun rights. Dick prosthesis rights, maybe.
Zero arguments for owning a gun right here, nothing to dismiss. Just give me one and please don't do the "but the forefathers gaveth us the right to gunz" idiocy.
|
Obviously you need more defense cows.
Seriously, methodman you come of way to agressive in a discussion that at lest for the last 1-2 pages was pretty calm and "sane"?
|
On May 30 2018 02:23 [DUF]MethodMan wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2018 02:17 Plansix wrote:
Woah there, there are sections of the US that have large wild animals. Washington state, you get moose, large bears and not a lot of people around. Taking a wild guess here, but doesn't that indicate to any sane person, that living in such an area is maybe not for the best? I don't doubt a second there is wildlife in the US that can be frightening and believe me, I'd probably shit myself at night if I lived there. I just see what I see and that is technologically apt, internationally thinking and academically trained people from my own generation seem to not think of it as a problem, when you live in a place where people go on random shooting sprees every day or how that could correlate with the level of gun-ownership there. I will apologize if I offended you in any way, I'm not especially good at getting points across without sounding aggressive. But I truly want to know what is behind this line of thinking.
People have been living in these areas for well over two centuries and those folks owning guns has nothing to do with the problems with gun control. You have accidently stumbled upon the largest problem with gun law in the US, picking fights with gun owners that wouldn’t have a problem with better, tighter background checks.
Also the US is a big as the entire EU. And we have different gun laws for each of our states.
|
On May 30 2018 02:30 [DUF]MethodMan wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2018 02:25 Danglars wrote:On May 30 2018 02:12 [DUF]MethodMan wrote:On May 30 2018 01:56 Danglars wrote: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. Or tackle the problem of school shootings that also doesn’t prevent willing citizens to defend their property and family with deadly force. Homeowners are not arming themselves to glory in shooting robbers, but that in fact less houses might be robbed. This is particularly true in rural communities (and certain urban settings with long police response times, at certain periods). I know it’s beating a dead horse at this point, but the key to negotiating the “common-sense gun reforms,” is to surrender the desire to prevent law abiding citizens from obtaining a gun and protest against “any reason to defend your home with a gun at any point). Gun owners will simply look at the loudmouths and conclude (sometimes rightly conclude depending on the issue) that the proposed changes are simply stepping stones to backwards repeal of the second amendment. You can’t placate a side that won’t stop agitating for more gun control until all gun-related tragedies cease. What you're saying is basically give gun-owners all the rights they want or let them keep any they want. Just the second amendment guaranteed right to own and use arms. This right will be maligned by partisan idiots as "all the rights they want." What you're saying is basically not to engage in arguments with gun-owners. What you're saying is basically "fuck you". The Second Amendment was written when it was necessary. I feel very little need to actually offer arguments if you insist on telling me what I'm saying. Do a little more reading and a little less willful misinterpretation. Do you still have civil war over there? Can you stop being intellectually lazy and at least come up with an actual argument for gun-ownership? Raccoons might be annoying, but they're not deadly, we've reached this conclusion a page ago. So no, there is no argument for owning a gun because of wild animals around the area you live in. You even might wanna consider moving if it is so dangerous. We've had home invasions, but still no. Experts on the matter tell you to rather leave and call police than stand your ground. No valid reason to be found here. Enlighten me, please. You can take up raccoons with Plansix. For basic police response times in rural areas, and some urban where police are unwilling or overtaxed, refer to actually addressing that point in the post you quoted. Or is the dick prosthesis just too important to give up and you don't even know why?
Oh wait, gotta tackle that school shooting problem: Easy access to firearms. Done. Easy. If calling gun rights as a "dick prothesis" is your game, I wonder why you even pretend to offer intellectual arguments. The basic point is your main game is insults and slander. When somebody makes points against, you dismiss them, and somehow still assume the fact that you dismissed them means they don't exist. Police response time: Employ more police. Dick prosthesis: Reference to a gun, not gun rights. Dick prosthesis rights, maybe. Zero arguments for owning a gun right here, nothing to dismiss. Just give me one and please don't do the "but the forefathers gaveth us the right to gunz" idiocy.
You simply can't for the tax base and spread out homes and farmhouses and widely dispersed communities across the America. I hesitate to even call it the American midwest (famous for it), because we're talking around 97% of the US's total land area. So take almost your own country's total population (3/4) and spread it across 25 times the land area of Germany before you can even appreciate the size of the problem. More police and more police stations is no real improvement in police response times to crimes in progress. You're better off arming yourself and deciding on what disturbances you're willing to scare away by confronting the criminal with a gun.
Anyone talking about guns as dick prothesis is too much of a huckster to expect to be taken seriously. It recalls to me memories of gun rights activists saying the gun control idiots don't know which way the gun shoots and thinks of assault rifles as anything big, black, and scary-looking (but the latter one is mainly true). Have your fun. Just know you won't be listened too much more than with laughs. You have a big truck, you must have a small penis ... so anyways, about American large vehicle laws that your side has no reason to defend ...
You have different values and rely on insults and belittling to try and cow the opposition into retreat. I'm intensely committed to an armed population able to defend themselves lethally to home invasion and attacks on their person or others while out and about. I'm willing to accept more tragedies of innocents with guns while working towards reducing them through other means. This includes enforcement of existing laws, like securing your weapons at home with stiff penalties for when teens are living at the house, and prohibition of citizens convicted of domestic assault for purchasing weapons. Your approach is tantamount to censoring news publications from publishing the attackers names and family situations, since it promotes underground fame and copycats, and "zero arguments for a free press here." Or unreasonable searches and seizures without warrants, because somewhere a criminal is guilty but the state lacks evidence, and how can you defend the rights of criminals committing more crimes! You might as well throw away all civil rights in your "but the forefathers" argument, because apparently all appeals to history are meaningless in your book. Enjoy being a subject and not a citizen.
|
Being intensely committed to an “armed population” is a strange phrase since the majority of Americans do not feel or see the need to own a fire arm.
|
On May 30 2018 03:09 Plansix wrote:
Being intensely committed to an “armed population” is a strange phrase since the majority of Americans do not feel or see the need to own a fire arm.
You take it one profession at a time. First teachers, then janitors, nurses etc.
Eventually everyone is armed.
|
United States43201 Posts
On May 30 2018 00:52 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2018 00:19 [DUF]MethodMan wrote: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: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. I am talking about dealing with raccoons on my fucking trash barrels, fucking them up and opening my trash. I can go out and deal with them in a broom. I’ve done that. But when that happens, I am acutely aware it could go badly at any moment. The real solution was to get a BB gun and shoot them with that. And before someone says “move the trash barrels” short of keeping them inside the house, that would only have lead to raccoons destroying my screened in deck or occupying my shed. They will not be denied.
Don't shoot small animals with a bb gun man. Either kill them or use beanbag rounds. Ball bearings are a sadistic approach to the problem.
|
On May 30 2018 03:15 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2018 00:52 Plansix wrote:On May 30 2018 00:19 [DUF]MethodMan wrote: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: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. I am talking about dealing with raccoons on my fucking trash barrels, fucking them up and opening my trash. I can go out and deal with them in a broom. I’ve done that. But when that happens, I am acutely aware it could go badly at any moment. The real solution was to get a BB gun and shoot them with that. And before someone says “move the trash barrels” short of keeping them inside the house, that would only have lead to raccoons destroying my screened in deck or occupying my shed. They will not be denied. Don't shoot small animals with a bb gun man. Either kill them or use beanbag rounds. Ball bearings are a sadistic approach to the problem.
I’m not an asshole. It was a single pump BB gun using plastic BBs. And I only had to shoot at them twice. Once it was an unknown force attacking them from the sky, they stopped going near the trash barrels.
|
United States43201 Posts
On May 30 2018 03:23 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2018 03:15 KwarK wrote:On May 30 2018 00:52 Plansix wrote:On May 30 2018 00:19 [DUF]MethodMan wrote: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: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. I am talking about dealing with raccoons on my fucking trash barrels, fucking them up and opening my trash. I can go out and deal with them in a broom. I’ve done that. But when that happens, I am acutely aware it could go badly at any moment. The real solution was to get a BB gun and shoot them with that. And before someone says “move the trash barrels” short of keeping them inside the house, that would only have lead to raccoons destroying my screened in deck or occupying my shed. They will not be denied. Don't shoot small animals with a bb gun man. Either kill them or use beanbag rounds. Ball bearings are a sadistic approach to the problem. I’m not an asshole. It was a single pump BB gun using plastic BBs. And I only had to shoot at them twice. Once it was an unknown force attacking them from the sky, they stopped going near the trash barrels.
Okay, sorry to have misjudged you. Teenagers in the UK can buy air rifles/bb guns and, as has been noted above, we barely have any wildlife. It's pretty common for the cunts to shoot at other peoples' pet cats with them. This has led to me having strong feelings on the bb gun small animal interaction.
|
On May 30 2018 03:09 Plansix wrote:
Being intensely committed to an “armed population” is a strange phrase since the majority of Americans do not feel or see the need to own a fire arm.
I preserve their right to arm themselves with just a bit of money and passage of time. A disarmed population is the ultimate goal of confiscation efforts, and a trend-line if you can no longer legally buy a gun.
The phrasing is pretty appropriate given the arguments here. A major one (recurring?) is that disarming all Americans is the proper solution to problems of gun violence. Anything short of that is properly an armed population. I can imagine another thread where the right to keep and bear arms was taken as an absolute, which would make my phrasing different.
|
On May 30 2018 03:00 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2018 02:30 [DUF]MethodMan wrote:On May 30 2018 02:25 Danglars wrote:On May 30 2018 02:12 [DUF]MethodMan wrote:On May 30 2018 01:56 Danglars wrote: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. Or tackle the problem of school shootings that also doesn’t prevent willing citizens to defend their property and family with deadly force. Homeowners are not arming themselves to glory in shooting robbers, but that in fact less houses might be robbed. This is particularly true in rural communities (and certain urban settings with long police response times, at certain periods). I know it’s beating a dead horse at this point, but the key to negotiating the “common-sense gun reforms,” is to surrender the desire to prevent law abiding citizens from obtaining a gun and protest against “any reason to defend your home with a gun at any point). Gun owners will simply look at the loudmouths and conclude (sometimes rightly conclude depending on the issue) that the proposed changes are simply stepping stones to backwards repeal of the second amendment. You can’t placate a side that won’t stop agitating for more gun control until all gun-related tragedies cease. What you're saying is basically give gun-owners all the rights they want or let them keep any they want. Just the second amendment guaranteed right to own and use arms. This right will be maligned by partisan idiots as "all the rights they want." What you're saying is basically not to engage in arguments with gun-owners. What you're saying is basically "fuck you". The Second Amendment was written when it was necessary. I feel very little need to actually offer arguments if you insist on telling me what I'm saying. Do a little more reading and a little less willful misinterpretation. Do you still have civil war over there? Can you stop being intellectually lazy and at least come up with an actual argument for gun-ownership? Raccoons might be annoying, but they're not deadly, we've reached this conclusion a page ago. So no, there is no argument for owning a gun because of wild animals around the area you live in. You even might wanna consider moving if it is so dangerous. We've had home invasions, but still no. Experts on the matter tell you to rather leave and call police than stand your ground. No valid reason to be found here. Enlighten me, please. You can take up raccoons with Plansix. For basic police response times in rural areas, and some urban where police are unwilling or overtaxed, refer to actually addressing that point in the post you quoted. Or is the dick prosthesis just too important to give up and you don't even know why?
Oh wait, gotta tackle that school shooting problem: Easy access to firearms. Done. Easy. If calling gun rights as a "dick prothesis" is your game, I wonder why you even pretend to offer intellectual arguments. The basic point is your main game is insults and slander. When somebody makes points against, you dismiss them, and somehow still assume the fact that you dismissed them means they don't exist. Police response time: Employ more police. Dick prosthesis: Reference to a gun, not gun rights. Dick prosthesis rights, maybe. Zero arguments for owning a gun right here, nothing to dismiss. Just give me one and please don't do the "but the forefathers gaveth us the right to gunz" idiocy. You simply can't for the tax base and spread out homes and farmhouses and widely dispersed communities across the America. I hesitate to even call it the American midwest (famous for it), because we're talking around 97% of the US's total land area. So take almost your own country's total population (3/4) and spread it across 25 times the land area of Germany before you can even appreciate the size of the problem. More police and more police stations is no real improvement in police response times to crimes in progress. You're better off arming yourself and deciding on what disturbances you're willing to scare away by confronting the criminal with a gun. Anyone talking about guns as dick prothesis is too much of a huckster to expect to be taken seriously. It recalls to me memories of gun rights activists saying the gun control idiots don't know which way the gun shoots and thinks of assault rifles as anything big, black, and scary-looking (but the latter one is mainly true). Have your fun. Just know you won't be listened too much more than with laughs. You have a big truck, you must have a small penis ... so anyways, about American large vehicle laws that your side has no reason to defend ... You have different values and rely on insults and belittling to try and cow the opposition into retreat. I'm intensely committed to an armed population able to defend themselves lethally to home invasion and attacks on their person or others while out and about. I'm willing to accept more tragedies of innocents with guns while working towards reducing them through other means. This includes enforcement of existing laws, like securing your weapons at home with stiff penalties for when teens are living at the house, and prohibition of citizens convicted of domestic assault for purchasing weapons. Your approach is tantamount to censoring news publications from publishing the attackers names and family situations, since it promotes underground fame and copycats, and "zero arguments for a free press here." Or unreasonable searches and seizures without warrants, because somewhere a criminal is guilty but the state lacks evidence, and how can you defend the rights of criminals committing more crimes! You might as well throw away all civil rights in your "but the forefathers" argument, because apparently all appeals to history are meaningless in your book. Enjoy being a subject and not a citizen.
"America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without knowing civilization." is pointed directly at you, my friend. Whenever you arrive at a point where you surpass this, you might come to the realization of there being a plethora of options dealing with anything you just brought up without using deadly force. Yes, most people who own big cars try to compensate, it's no secret and of course nobody will ever admit it. Why would you have to sit 3m high on a vehicle that has 4WD, when all you do is drive roads? Roads are bad? Fix them. Why would you have to carry around a tool that when used is deadly to other people? Are you in danger from anybody else? Or does your job require you to do so? I bet you could make an argument for yourself even if guns were generally prohibited.
Calling me a subject, not a citizen tops this whole shit off quite nicely. I question the laws in place, you want people to abide by them, accepting "more tragedies of innocents with guns". Now go ahead, smoke some of that Breitbart and tell yourself some more lies about being absolutely in charge of your own life with nobody else ever to tell you what to do, cowboy.
|
United States43201 Posts
On May 30 2018 03:34 [DUF]MethodMan wrote:
Why would you have to sit 3m high on a vehicle that has 4WD, when all you do is drive roads? Roads are bad? Fix them
It's not about the roads, the roads are fine. It's so you don't have to make eye contact with the homeless people on the street corners beneath you (except in Alabama, in Alabama it's probably both).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
