|
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 30 2018 03:31 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2018 03:23 Plansix wrote: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.
Don’t get me wrong, I considered it. They are total assholes. But then I thought about dealing with a mortally injured animal in my back yard and decided to go with plastic BBs.
|
I'd like to mention that Methodman comes off as needlessly aggressive and probably wrong to me too. I think i have made it very clear that i think european-style gun control is a good idea, and would probably also be a good idea in the US.
But that does not mean that there are not reasons to own guns. That is why i call it gun control, not a gun ban. (And european style is a pretty wide range, too). Anyways, my point is that if there is a good reason to own a gun (Like "I live in the wilderness and there are bears"), it is completely reasonable for people to own guns.
I also don't think that the whole racoon discussion is very weird and not really on point. It seems like a lot of citydwellers explaining to other people how to deal with wild animals. Also, American architecture is really weird. The whole idea of crawlspaces and walls in which there is enough room for medium sized animals to live is really strange and scary.
|
On May 30 2018 03:34 [DUF]MethodMan wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2018 03:00 Danglars wrote: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.
One of the hallmarks of there being multiple options of response is picking between them. You assert that one option is anti-civilizational. You want one option not among the list of possible options. It's no secret that gun-owning Americans, or supporters of their right, look with disdain at people that know very little about what they deign to criticize, only that they are targets for derision.
Well, right back at you. I question the proposed action on gun control, when you repudiate the right to gun ownership and to defend your home with a gun. I do this both from the side impact of rural communities that cannot depend on a quick police response, longer-term as a useful preservation for representative government, and a very good embodiment of the core right of self defense. I'm grateful for others in the thread that did the heavy lifting on the latter two. I'm not willing to sacrifice the effective means of home defense and defense of person to anyone that wants the side affect of less gun tragedies and less guns in the hands of criminals, and thinks this will achieve much of that. I'm even less tempted to be sympathetic to these arguments when you use "dick prothesis" "big egos" "your insurance is gonna get you a new TV with a few more inches than the one that got robbed."
On May 30 2018 02:30 Velr wrote:
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"?
I'm trying to self-censor some to not reduce myself to your (methodman) level. The subject vs citizen is my true belief of people that contract out their own safety so recklessly and absolutely, but I shouldn't speak that. It probably feeds your rage, so I'm done here. The passion for confiscation and 2nd amendment repeal outright helps my cause politically way more than sane discussion helps me towards encouraging compromise positions closer to sanity. I don't need to be present for that to occur.
|
You should note that Methodman is very singular here.
|
On May 30 2018 04:08 Simberto wrote:
You should note that Methodman is very singular here.
He has analogues in the states that use the same derision in pursuit of political arguments. Thankfully, he's rather unique in this forum for tone and needless aggression. I freely note that.
|
On May 30 2018 04:16 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2018 04:08 Simberto wrote:
You should note that Methodman is very singular here. He has analogues in the states that use the same derision in pursuit of political arguments. Thankfully, he's rather unique in this forum for tone and needless aggression. I freely note that.
He isn't "analogues in the states". He's one dude. Address the argument, and the tone of the person using it, all you want. That's fair game. Generalizations aren't helpful.
|
I live one of those “liberal” state with strong gun control laws and not one that matters talks about guns the way that Methodman. I can’t speak for other peoples personal experiences, but those people also shouldn’t speak for entire states.
|
On May 30 2018 04:22 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2018 04:16 Danglars wrote:On May 30 2018 04:08 Simberto wrote:
You should note that Methodman is very singular here. He has analogues in the states that use the same derision in pursuit of political arguments. Thankfully, he's rather unique in this forum for tone and needless aggression. I freely note that. He isn't "analogues in the states". He's one dude. Address the argument, and the tone of the person using it, all you want. That's fair game. Generalizations aren't helpful.
By "he has analogues in the states", I'm asserting that I don't think he's "very singular" in all respects. I was asked to note that he was very singular here, and I wanted to specifically say Simberto is right as "here" applies to "this forum" but wrong as "here" might be taken to mean "the political debate in the United States over gun control."
On May 30 2018 04:26 Plansix wrote:
I live one of those “liberal” state with strong gun control laws and not one that matters talks about guns the way that Methodman. I can’t speak for other peoples personal experiences, but those people also shouldn’t speak for entire states.
From personal experience, the combination of arguments and logical fallacies that Methodman uses is present among individuals I've talked with and heard in print/television media in the United State. I'm not going to say it's a majority view or anything. Is it really that surprising, given the emotional stakes in dead children from bullets, the demonization of the NRA, and the frequent comparisons to gun rights and ownership of grenade launchers and nukes?
In all expected reactions, I didn't expect to be taken for task for Methodman having "analogues in the states that use the same..."
|
On May 30 2018 04:05 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2018 03:34 [DUF]MethodMan wrote:On May 30 2018 03:00 Danglars wrote: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. One of the hallmarks of there being multiple options of response is picking between them. You assert that one option is anti-civilizational. You want one option not among the list of possible options. It's no secret that gun-owning Americans, or supporters of their right, look with disdain at people that know very little about what they deign to criticize, only that they are targets for derision. Well, right back at you. I question the proposed action on gun control, when you repudiate the right to gun ownership and to defend your home with a gun. I do this both from the side impact of rural communities that cannot depend on a quick police response, longer-term as a useful preservation for representative government, and a very good embodiment of the core right of self defense. I'm grateful for others in the thread that did the heavy lifting on the latter two. I'm not willing to sacrifice the effective means of home defense and defense of person to anyone that wants the side affect of less gun tragedies and less guns in the hands of criminals, and thinks this will achieve much of that. I'm even less tempted to be sympathetic to these arguments when you use "dick prothesis" "big egos" "your insurance is gonna get you a new TV with a few more inches than the one that got robbed." Show nested quote +On May 30 2018 02:30 Velr wrote:
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"? I'm trying to self-censor some to not reduce myself to your (methodman) level. The subject vs citizen is my true belief of people that contract out their own safety so recklessly and absolutely, but I shouldn't speak that. It probably feeds your rage, so I'm done here. The passion for confiscation and 2nd amendment repeal outright helps my cause politically way more than sane discussion helps me towards encouraging compromise positions closer to sanity. I don't need to be present for that to occur.
Haha, alright. Good Sir, would you kindly explain to me the reasoning behind owning a gun for safety reasons, when it is proven time and again a gun in your home makes it in fact unsafer by a large margin? Could you be delighted to decipher to me, as to how said fact is detrimental to your security? I am trying really hard to understand your logic, by which a citizen takes an increase in risk when not owning a gun, while there is irrefutable logic behind owning a gun actually making you a lot more likely to be harmed.
Since it does really seem to elude you how anyone who's ever touched a gun would give it up again, I've discharged many a firearm during my time in Latvia and it was great fun, yes. I knows where to pulls trigger and where bullet comes out, don't you worry. I never got the urge to buy one and store it in my own house though. Am I just missing something, or do I really just don't need a gun and thus rather not own one? Now, tell me, how many more firearms are there in the metropolitan areas, where we've deducted there being absolutely zero need for one, other than professional ones.
Are you police? Get that gun. Are you hunting (not just for funsies you know, actually using it to the benefit of humans and wildlife alike)? Get that gun. You aren't any of the above? Don't get that gun. Apply this logic to the point where there are no more guns in public hands et voila, no need to fear armed robbery or home invasion anymore. If the off-chance happens though, I'm sure you can live with it, since it's just a tragedy.
Can you openly carry around a sword in states with unlicensed open carry laws (the majority of US states if wikipedia is to be believed)? I highly doubt so. Just explain the utter lack in logic behind all this and how you fine gentleman with such worldly vocabulary come to defend it so heavily.
Also, you having a gun puts my safety at risk too. Me having a gun too would put as both at even higher risk. I gotta think really hard now, but what if we both didn't own any gun at all? So pretty please, just do me a solid here and explain your reasons for apparently thinking completely otherwise.
On May 30 2018 04:55 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2018 04:22 NewSunshine wrote:On May 30 2018 04:16 Danglars wrote:On May 30 2018 04:08 Simberto wrote:
You should note that Methodman is very singular here. He has analogues in the states that use the same derision in pursuit of political arguments. Thankfully, he's rather unique in this forum for tone and needless aggression. I freely note that. He isn't "analogues in the states". He's one dude. Address the argument, and the tone of the person using it, all you want. That's fair game. Generalizations aren't helpful. By "he has analogues in the states", I'm asserting that I don't think he's "very singular" in all respects. I was asked to note that he was very singular here, and I wanted to specifically say Simberto is right as "here" applies to "this forum" but wrong as "here" might be taken to mean "the political debate in the United States over gun control." Show nested quote +On May 30 2018 04:26 Plansix wrote:
I live one of those “liberal” state with strong gun control laws and not one that matters talks about guns the way that Methodman. I can’t speak for other peoples personal experiences, but those people also shouldn’t speak for entire states. From personal experience, the combination of arguments and logical fallacies that Methodman uses is present among individuals I've talked with and heard in print/television media in the United State. I'm not going to say it's a majority view or anything. Is it really that surprising, given the emotional stakes in dead children from bullets, the demonization of the NRA, and the frequent comparisons to gun rights and ownership of grenade launchers and nukes? In all expected reactions, I didn't expect to be taken for task for Methodman having "analogues in the states that use the same..."
Dude, I'm just a random guy from Germany who happens to like Broodwar. I have no agenda other than contesting your logically flawed arguments pro gun-ownership. And by your own logic, you're the subject here.
|
On May 30 2018 04:55 Danglars wrote:
In all expected reactions, I didn't expect to be taken for task for Methodman having "analogues in the states that use the same..."
It's really simple, attack the argument, not the person making it, or other people who you think do the same thing, but at present are not. It's something we've had to make an effort towards in this community, because it's part of why the old USpol thread became what it was and got locked. You're equivocating over whether it's cool to say "well people in the US do it too." Maybe they do. Direct the same arguments at them when they do. Until then, one person is making an arguably harsh argument, and you're free to address it however you see fit.
|
On May 30 2018 05:00 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2018 04:55 Danglars wrote:
In all expected reactions, I didn't expect to be taken for task for Methodman having "analogues in the states that use the same..." It's really simple, attack the argument, not the person making it, or other people who you think do the same thing, but at present are not. It's something we've had to make an effort towards in this community, because it's part of why the old USpol thread became what it was and got locked. You're equivocating over whether it's cool to say "well people in the US do it too." Maybe they do. Direct the same arguments at them when they do. Until then, one person is making an arguably harsh argument, and you're free to address it however you see fit.
I say it's simple too. If asked to note how something or someone is singular, describe how they are and how they aren't. You're taking offense simply at responding fully to Simberto.
On May 30 2018 04:08 Simberto wrote:
You should note that Methodman is very singular here.
NewSunshine, I will not be purposefully vague just because you think qualifying a position is an attack on people not arguments. I think you're being absurd. + Show Spoiler +Since further posting on this channel will further derail the thread, I recommend you PM me or post in website feedback.
|
Getting the last word in and then spoilering a request to take it to PM is some passive aggressive posting at its finest. If you are going to take it to PM, be the first one to take it to PM.
On May 30 2018 06:08 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2018 05:37 Plansix wrote:
Getting the last word in and then spoilering a request to take it to PM is some passive aggressive posting at its finest. If you are going to take it to PM, be the first one to take it to PM. Likewise, you could’ve just PM’d me if you thought I was being passive aggressive. I want everyone to know I’ll take quality control discussion in PMs, while acknowledging that call outs in this thread tend to derail the discussion. He (or you) can have the last word for all you want after that post, i don’t care. Understood? I’m here to discuss a gun control/gun rights position in light of current events. I don’t think the legislative fight has to ossify for the next five or ten years, or take until one side outright loses a court battle or surrenders. Several politicians have public ally proposed national legislation, so we’ll see where that goes.
I could have, but I felt your post was unfair to Sunshine. I want to make sure the faux polite tone while getting the last word in was pointed out in public, which is why I did it. And you are correct, we can go back to the topic at hand now.
|
On May 30 2018 05:37 Plansix wrote:
Getting the last word in and then spoilering a request to take it to PM is some passive aggressive posting at its finest. If you are going to take it to PM, be the first one to take it to PM.
Likewise, you could’ve just PM’d me if you thought I was being passive aggressive. I want everyone to know I’ll take quality control discussion in PMs, while acknowledging that call outs in this thread tend to derail the discussion. He (or you) can have the last word for all you want after that post, i don’t care. Understood?
I’m here to discuss a gun control/gun rights position in light of current events. I don’t think the legislative fight has to ossify for the next five or ten years, or take until one side outright loses a court battle or surrenders. Several politicians have public ally proposed national legislation, so we’ll see where that goes.
|
You guys obviously haven't seen these Washington raccoons
+ Show Spoiler +
We should just do what the Norwegians do when they set up camp in dangerous areas (polar bears). Surround your place with some small explosives and trip wires. Much more sensible than a gun.
I understand the general idea behind thinking removing guns is the play, but particularly with school shootings, there were plenty of guns before those became a thing, so their cause can't be the guns.
We may reduce the death tolls of these types of events by removing guns, but that only removes any remaining urgency to address why people are killing others in the first place.
|
On May 30 2018 06:26 GreenHorizons wrote:You guys obviously haven't seen these Washington raccoons + Show Spoiler +We should just do what the Norwegians do when they set up camp in dangerous areas (polar bears). Surround your place with some small explosives and trip wires. Much more sensible than a gun. I understand the general idea behind thinking removing guns is the play, but particularly with school shootings, there were plenty of guns before those became a thing, so their cause can't be the guns. We may reduce the death tolls of these types of events by removing guns, but that only removes any remaining urgency to address why people are killing others in the first place.
This does make a certain amount of sense but it would be easier to swallow if there was any urgency to address why people are killing others to begin with.
There isn't.
Unfortunately I think the answers are too hard to swallow, and say damning things about the world we've built.
|
On May 30 2018 06:34 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2018 06:26 GreenHorizons wrote:You guys obviously haven't seen these Washington raccoons + Show Spoiler +We should just do what the Norwegians do when they set up camp in dangerous areas (polar bears). Surround your place with some small explosives and trip wires. Much more sensible than a gun. I understand the general idea behind thinking removing guns is the play, but particularly with school shootings, there were plenty of guns before those became a thing, so their cause can't be the guns. We may reduce the death tolls of these types of events by removing guns, but that only removes any remaining urgency to address why people are killing others in the first place. This does make a certain amount of sense but it would be easier to swallow if there was any urgency to address why people are killing others to begin with. There isn't. Unfortunately I think the answers are too hard to swallow, and say damning things about the world we've built.
There's a contingency of us, though certainly not a popular position here. The answers are harsh and if kids murdering kids doesn't do it I don't know what would for the people still more focused on the guns (either pro or anti).
If we look long enough we'll probably find there are many overlapping reasons that people kill themselves and/or others and that guns are one of the most superficial connections.
Though if the concession is that society is broken and the best we can hope for is making it harder to kill people I guess focusing on guns (pro or anti) is the way to go.
|
On May 30 2018 06:34 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2018 06:26 GreenHorizons wrote:You guys obviously haven't seen these Washington raccoons + Show Spoiler +We should just do what the Norwegians do when they set up camp in dangerous areas (polar bears). Surround your place with some small explosives and trip wires. Much more sensible than a gun. I understand the general idea behind thinking removing guns is the play, but particularly with school shootings, there were plenty of guns before those became a thing, so their cause can't be the guns. We may reduce the death tolls of these types of events by removing guns, but that only removes any remaining urgency to address why people are killing others in the first place. This does make a certain amount of sense but it would be easier to swallow if there was any urgency to address why people are killing others to begin with. There isn't. Unfortunately I think the answers are too hard to swallow, and say damning things about the world we've built.
How about we start with the most common cause? Single parent house hold. It's also a great predictor, even better than poverty, for a whole lot of young kids like criminality and low scolarship. The research is widely available in a single google search.
|
United States42016 Posts
On May 30 2018 09:55 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2018 06:34 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 30 2018 06:26 GreenHorizons wrote:You guys obviously haven't seen these Washington raccoons + Show Spoiler +We should just do what the Norwegians do when they set up camp in dangerous areas (polar bears). Surround your place with some small explosives and trip wires. Much more sensible than a gun. I understand the general idea behind thinking removing guns is the play, but particularly with school shootings, there were plenty of guns before those became a thing, so their cause can't be the guns. We may reduce the death tolls of these types of events by removing guns, but that only removes any remaining urgency to address why people are killing others in the first place. This does make a certain amount of sense but it would be easier to swallow if there was any urgency to address why people are killing others to begin with. There isn't. Unfortunately I think the answers are too hard to swallow, and say damning things about the world we've built. How about we start with the most common cause? Single parent house hold. It's also a great predictor, even better than poverty, for a whole lot of young kids like criminality and low scolarship. The research is widely available in a single google search.
Like the Columbine killers or Elliot Rodger?
There has been an attempt in conservative circles to deflect blame to single mothers, and therefore onto an evil liberal feminist agenda that hates the family (usually Christianity too). I tried googling the research you referenced and all I found was a circle jerk of self referential Breitbart shit about how liberals are to blame for taking away family values. Unfortunately though the reality is that school shooters usually come from middle class white backgrounds and have families that reflect the broader population.
That's not to say that school shooters don't often have troubled home lives, I'll happily concede the two are correlated and that one most likely helps cause the other. But single parent homes aren't the same thing as troubled homes.
Feminism didn't cause Columbine.
|
On May 30 2018 10:01 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2018 09:55 GoTuNk! wrote:On May 30 2018 06:34 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 30 2018 06:26 GreenHorizons wrote:You guys obviously haven't seen these Washington raccoons + Show Spoiler +We should just do what the Norwegians do when they set up camp in dangerous areas (polar bears). Surround your place with some small explosives and trip wires. Much more sensible than a gun. I understand the general idea behind thinking removing guns is the play, but particularly with school shootings, there were plenty of guns before those became a thing, so their cause can't be the guns. We may reduce the death tolls of these types of events by removing guns, but that only removes any remaining urgency to address why people are killing others in the first place. This does make a certain amount of sense but it would be easier to swallow if there was any urgency to address why people are killing others to begin with. There isn't. Unfortunately I think the answers are too hard to swallow, and say damning things about the world we've built. How about we start with the most common cause? Single parent house hold. It's also a great predictor, even better than poverty, for a whole lot of young kids like criminality and low scolarship. The research is widely available in a single google search. Like the Columbine killers or Elliot Rodger? There has been an attempt in conservative circles to deflect blame to single mothers, and therefore onto an evil liberal feminist agenda that hates the family (usually Christianity too). I tried googling the research you referenced and all I found was a circle jerk of self referential Breitbart shit about how liberals are to blame for taking away family values. Unfortunately though the reality is that school shooters usually come from middle class white backgrounds and have families that reflect the broader population. That's not to say that school shooters don't often have troubled home lives, I'll happily concede the two are correlated and that one most likely helps cause the other. But single parent homes aren't the same thing as troubled homes. Feminism didn't cause Columbine.
Yeah you are taking my point too far and making claims I didn't.
Saying broken homes are bad for children is not the same as blaming single mothers for school shootings. Broken homes usually involve varying degrees of responsability on both parents. There are both dads that walk out on their kids, and mothers who do whole lot of horrible things.
I honestly think it's a complex issue and my main point would be that government can't do much about it.
I would say promoting traditional values in society and comunities would go a whole lot to help this issue and others, which does make me a conservative in that sense.
|
This has nothing to do with guns or the laws surrounding them. And political buzzwords line “traditional values” and “broken homes” are used to gloss over complex problems with simple, easy sounding solutions. Just take a moment and think about how loaded the term “broken homes” is and what it implies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/5LB5hcN.jpg)
