|
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. |
Yeah, but notice how the terrorists usually didn't have guns? Because it is HARD to get a gun in the UK. You can't really make it hard to get knives, because those have an actual purpose besides killing things.
And sure, people without guns can be dangerous to. Just far less dangerous than the same person with a gun. If i encounter a criminal, i would be far more comfortable if none of us have a gun, as opposed to if both of us have one. Both with a gun makes the encounter mostly a coinflip with one of us ending up dead, while none with a gun means i can just give the criminal my tv, and don't have a 50% chance of ending up dead.
|
On November 13 2018 19:54 Simberto wrote:
Yeah, but notice how the terrorists usually didn't have guns? Because it is HARD to get a gun in the UK. You can't really make it hard to get knives, because those have an actual purpose besides killing things.
And sure, people without guns can be dangerous to. Just far less dangerous than the same person with a gun. If i encounter a criminal, i would be far more comfortable if none of us have a gun, as opposed to if both of us have one. Both with a gun makes the encounter mostly a coinflip with one of us ending up dead, while none with a gun means i can just give the criminal my tv, and don't have a 50% chance of ending up dead.
1) The UK in general has less violent crime overall, and started out with less violent crime than the United States even prior to this.
2) The UK is an island country, it makes it much easier to regulate firearms if you want a very strict environment. Believing that the United States could just implement similar laws and just call it a day is asinine. Not to mention, you haven't even talked about how one would handle the current 900 million+ firearms currently in circulation. What are you gonna do, tell those lawful gun owners that now their firearms are illegal and that we're having a Federal buy back program? Good luck.
3) You're comparing a much geographically smaller country to the United States, that has a far more homogeneous culture than the United States. If you're separating the Latino population from the white population (which you should; Latinos are culturally and socioeconomically different from your standard white population), the U.S. white population is like 62%ish or something like that. Meanwhile the UK is 87% white, as in, 87% white/non latino with very similar cultural beliefs and backgrounds. These things matter alot. With Australia being the only example I can think of, pretty much every other country with a high mixture of different cultures and ethnic make-ups always have issues with crime.
4) Parts of the United States has much more in common with 3rd world countries than 1st world countries. Comparing places like Montana, Idaho, Nebraska, Louisiana, and Mississippi against the UK is not really a fair or equal comparison. It's one of the major reasons why instituting a gun ban wouldn't work. Washington D.C. had a handgun ban prior to 2008, and yet homicide rates dropped at a natural rate despite the handgun ban being lifted. It's crazy talk! Number of firearms doesn't mean an increase in homicides?!
And before flying off the handle with some more moral grandstanding, I've already stated that there should be more strict regulations.
|
On November 13 2018 21:10 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2018 19:54 Simberto wrote:
Yeah, but notice how the terrorists usually didn't have guns? Because it is HARD to get a gun in the UK. You can't really make it hard to get knives, because those have an actual purpose besides killing things.
And sure, people without guns can be dangerous to. Just far less dangerous than the same person with a gun. If i encounter a criminal, i would be far more comfortable if none of us have a gun, as opposed to if both of us have one. Both with a gun makes the encounter mostly a coinflip with one of us ending up dead, while none with a gun means i can just give the criminal my tv, and don't have a 50% chance of ending up dead. 1) The UK in general has less violent crime overall, and started out with less violent crime than the United States even prior to this. 2) The UK is an island country, it makes it much easier to regulate firearms if you want a very strict environment. Believing that the United States could just implement similar laws and just call it a day is asinine. Not to mention, you haven't even talked about how one would handle the current 900 million+ firearms currently in circulation. What are you gonna do, tell those lawful gun owners that now their firearms are illegal and that we're having a Federal buy back program? Good luck. 3) You're comparing a much geographically smaller country to the United States, that has a far more homogeneous culture than the United States. If you're separating the Latino population from the white population (which you should; Latinos are culturally and socioeconomically different from your standard white population), the U.S. white population is like 62%ish or something like that. Meanwhile the UK is 87% white, as in, 87% white/non latino with very similar cultural beliefs and backgrounds. These things matter alot. With Australia being the only example I can think of, pretty much every other country with a high mixture of different cultures and ethnic make-ups always have issues with crime. 4) Parts of the United States has much more in common with 3rd world countries than 1st world countries. Comparing places like Montana, Idaho, Nebraska, Louisiana, and Mississippi against the UK is not really a fair or equal comparison. It's one of the major reasons why instituting a gun ban wouldn't work. Washington D.C. had a handgun ban prior to 2008, and yet homicide rates dropped at a natural rate despite the handgun ban being lifted. It's crazy talk! Number of firearms doesn't mean an increase in homicides?! And before flying off the handle with some more moral grandstanding, I've already stated that there should be more strict regulations.
You can throw all that other stuff out there... but objectively, nothing Simberto said is wrong.
He is 100% right.
|
On November 13 2018 12:06 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2018 11:40 ShambhalaWar wrote:On November 13 2018 11:15 Danglars wrote:On November 13 2018 10:39 ShambhalaWar wrote:On November 11 2018 19:27 Danglars wrote:On November 11 2018 16:08 superstartran wrote:On November 11 2018 12:32 Danglars wrote:On November 11 2018 10:44 Blazinghand wrote:
All of those are things that California has to some extent or another. And it does reduce gun crime in the state. I think we could do things better, true. I disagree with the idea that because one mass shooting happened, our current gun law does nothing, and therefore we shouldn't have it at all. On November 11 2018 11:54 superstartran wrote:On November 11 2018 10:44 Blazinghand wrote:On November 11 2018 10:24 superstartran wrote:
[quote]
1) It is a statistical fact that in some years more people in Europe die from radical islamic terrorist attacks than mass shootings in the United States. I don't see mass hysteria all over the news about it though. Good attempt at straw manning me though. Point being, you can debate the points without acting like you are holier than thou and somehow Europe is the epitome of the civilized world. Don't try and twist my words. I never said anything about 'proportional.' I was speaking strictly on raw numbers.
2) You have moral grandstanded in this very thread, you yourself have claimed you don't understand how U.S. citizens could possibly feel that self-defense is a justifiable reason to having guns, when so many people are dying around them. That's classic textbook moral grand standing.
3) When I refer to you, I refer to not just you, but many others also in this very thread who have shit on U.S. gun culture, saying that gun rights activists are complicit in the murder of innocence, etc. I'm pretty sick of seeing it.
And please do tell me where my 'murica' beliefs are. I believe in gun control laws such as...
1) Banning Bumpstocks
2) Firearm Registration
3) Red Flag Laws
4) Magazine Limitations (Not completely limited, but maybe something to the degree of high capacity requires a special exception and local law enforcement approval)
5) Expanded Background Checks
6) Required Firearm Education Classes
7) Wait Times
I think these are all very reasonable regulations that pretty much everyone here can agree with. But for some odd reason, people want to jump on the hate Murica train. Which kind of leads me to believe that it's not really about gun control at all, but rather people would rather just see guns banned. All of those are things that California has to some extent or another. And it does reduce gun crime in the state. I think we could do things better, true. I disagree with the idea that because one mass shooting happened, our current gun law does nothing, and therefore we shouldn't have it at all. That really wasn't my point; my point was to point out that despite California having all these laws that have been clamored for years by gun control activists, it still did not prevent the mass shooting. Because like you said, mass shootings only make up about 1% of the firearm homicide rates. That's not to say gun control laws shouldn't be passed; it's only demonstrating that many gun control activists don't care about gun control as a whole, but only when shit doesn't go 'according to plan.' Cops get shot or urban gangsters die? NBD. Some middle class white people die? Fuck, we gotta do something. See why I'm skeptical as to motive and reasoning? California has made some progress in that it has much better social programs than states like say Mississippi or Louisiana, along with strong gun control laws. It's also a much larger state as you mentioned so it can afford many of these programs. For other states to really be able to get such programs, better enforcement of gun control laws, etc. you'd need the Federal government to step in. That's only going to happen when people stop doing things like shaming law abiding gun owners, stop suggesting ridiculous shit like 'we should look at the 2nd amendment' etc. Just to both of your two points: One mass shooting does not either point out our current gun laws do nothing, nor does it argue for more gun laws. The "do something!" trend is absolutely the wrong approach. These laws should work on their merits. It should impact crime without unduly punishing lawful gun owners, and be shown to actually have some effect on criminals rather than just burdening the law abiding. I don't speak for either of you, but for myself, it's these "activists for a day" types that want to allege complicity in murder and inadequacy and total ignorance of all past legislation that really hinder progressive compromise in this area (and repeal of bad legislation masquerading as gun control legislation). My point was always the fact that most people are really 'activists for a day' or 'gun abolitionists' masquerading as gun control advocates. It's not about whether I disagree whether those laws work or not, it's the fact that the most recent shooting demonstrated how the liberal media and many 'activists' didn't have a whole lot of material to work from in order to push their anti-gun agenda. But if the same shooter performed the shooting with say an AR-15, it would be like all hell broke loose. And just as a side note, for people who keep talking shit about the 2nd Amendment and how it is a loose interpretation of it, I'm fairly certain that earlier drafts of the 2nd Amendment did actually explicitly state the right to private firearms. So the idea that the Founding Father's did not intend for the 2nd Amendment to guarantee private citizens ownership of firearms is abit asinine, especially when you're looking at the historical context of the Constitution, and earlier drafts of the 2nd Amendment, along with the history of firearms, firearm laws, and how the courts have generally ruled in favor of firearm ownership in the United States. I wholeheartedly agree. Honest to God, the slice of debate present here is just the kind I observe in town halls and debates and news articles. Just do something! Doesn't make a lick of difference if it would've affected today's tragedy ... hell, it doesn't even matter if it stops even one guy intent on doing crime from getting a gun. What matters is we did something for gun control, there's a new law on the books we can feel good about, and to hell with what it does to lawful gun owners just trying to defend themselves, their family, and their stuff. It's all just that ratcheting wrench. It only goes one way: your lawful purchase, carry, and use in self defense of a firearm goes down. No repeals back the other way if it didn't work or just made the whole thing more expensive. One more quarter turn towards your second amendment rights going poof. Second amendment rights that we're going to not-so-subtly pretend never existed in the amendment. Yesterday's cabal of gun haters got their laws, like the DC gun laws preventing guns at home from being operable. It took the Court of Appeals/Supreme Court to step in and hold everybody up on rending it impossible to use them in the absolutely lawful purpose of self-defense. Today's gang is heading in the same direction. Why do you need that gun at home, don't you know it just increases the chance of death by gun? Don't you know American gun culture is bad? Don't you know about the traumatic effect inflicted on the ENTIRE country? Don't you know the NRA really are the devil, and aligned politicians actually don't care about dead kids? If those kind of arguments worked, the 2nd amendment would have been fully repealed by now. I'm not going to agree with you on some of your favored gun control measures, particularly on magazines and required classes. I do somewhat agree on pointing out the moral granstanding/moral issues behind it all. If no preservation of gun freedom is worth even one more death, then you set a high moral bar for the rest to debate around. After reading your posts many times, I would say one this is extremely consistent in your world view... The top priority is that everyone has the right to own a gun. And you don't appear to give a shit about who gets killed by those guns or even that people are trained to use them appropriately. Where on your list of priorities does, "people not getting murdered by guns" lie? I've never once heard you offer anything in the way of empathy for any of the hundred victims of US mass shootings, but you appear enthusiastic about defending the rights of anyone (even untrained or unstable people) to carry and use firearms. Is that accurate?I'm only going off what I've seen in your posts. Maybe I missed the ones about the victims, but the majority (or all) of what I've read is simply you addressing gun ownership. I'm not trying to shit talk you, I just really want to know if that's something you think about at all? If I missed it, my apologies, too many posts to comb through. I've had enough time to read your recent posts. To put it quite simply, you've shown such a willingness to demonize and not understand empathy from people who disagree with you, that I picture it will take several years before you can move out of the frame of "you don't appear to give a shit" ... "is that accurate." I will continue to read your posts. I won't entirely disagree with what you say about me in this post. Recently I've been emotional about this topic and justifiably angry with how many people die from firearms in the US. My intention isn't to demonize people, though I'm sure I've not done the best job of making that clear. This whole business of cleaning up the gun deaths in the US is a messy discussion. You can disagree with me, but I still don't see you saying anything about the people dying in these shootings. All the posts I read from you are concerned with gun rights. Reading this leads me to believe it's not a concern for you. Usually I would expect people address the things they are most concerned with first, which has me question what priority the victims have for you? How do all the deaths impact you? You will find zero fertile ground with me if you remain in the perspective of thinking I have no empathy for dead people in shootings, since I don't regale you with tales of how I'm kept up at night and how deeply troubled I am at each new incident this year. I compare you to some religious people I know that take an absence of "thoughts and prayers" explicitly said to mean you only care to politicize the deaths and smear your hated groups and capitalize on your policy agenda. I understand that you're emotional about this topic, so I'll excuse the implication that I don't give a shit about the victims because I'm interested in this debate here not to swing too far against civil liberties in the wake of these events.
I'm asking you what the impact is because I genuinely want to know. What I find is that it's helpful actually know that, because it doesn't get stated enough imo. These threads are 90% conversations about definitions of what something is or individual rights, but not enough is said about our emotions.
Even if people want to believe they aren't emotional, emotions are present because I can see how frustrated people get with each other.
When everyone is just talking about those rights and definitions it's actually really hard for me to know if they care about what feels like it matters most, peoples' lives. If people don't say they care, I'm not sure how I'm supposed to know. It's a false assumption to assume everyone cares.
The crazy thing is that if we all just stated that we cared most about the victims then we would all be more alike than we are different... isn't that nuts?
It's definitely what I give a shit about the most, that more people don't die. I'm sure we could all get there together... if that really is the common ground we share.
|
On November 13 2018 11:47 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2018 11:40 ShambhalaWar wrote:On November 13 2018 11:15 Danglars wrote:On November 13 2018 10:39 ShambhalaWar wrote:On November 11 2018 19:27 Danglars wrote:On November 11 2018 16:08 superstartran wrote:On November 11 2018 12:32 Danglars wrote:On November 11 2018 10:44 Blazinghand wrote:
All of those are things that California has to some extent or another. And it does reduce gun crime in the state. I think we could do things better, true. I disagree with the idea that because one mass shooting happened, our current gun law does nothing, and therefore we shouldn't have it at all. On November 11 2018 11:54 superstartran wrote:On November 11 2018 10:44 Blazinghand wrote:On November 11 2018 10:24 superstartran wrote:
[quote]
1) It is a statistical fact that in some years more people in Europe die from radical islamic terrorist attacks than mass shootings in the United States. I don't see mass hysteria all over the news about it though. Good attempt at straw manning me though. Point being, you can debate the points without acting like you are holier than thou and somehow Europe is the epitome of the civilized world. Don't try and twist my words. I never said anything about 'proportional.' I was speaking strictly on raw numbers.
2) You have moral grandstanded in this very thread, you yourself have claimed you don't understand how U.S. citizens could possibly feel that self-defense is a justifiable reason to having guns, when so many people are dying around them. That's classic textbook moral grand standing.
3) When I refer to you, I refer to not just you, but many others also in this very thread who have shit on U.S. gun culture, saying that gun rights activists are complicit in the murder of innocence, etc. I'm pretty sick of seeing it.
And please do tell me where my 'murica' beliefs are. I believe in gun control laws such as...
1) Banning Bumpstocks
2) Firearm Registration
3) Red Flag Laws
4) Magazine Limitations (Not completely limited, but maybe something to the degree of high capacity requires a special exception and local law enforcement approval)
5) Expanded Background Checks
6) Required Firearm Education Classes
7) Wait Times
I think these are all very reasonable regulations that pretty much everyone here can agree with. But for some odd reason, people want to jump on the hate Murica train. Which kind of leads me to believe that it's not really about gun control at all, but rather people would rather just see guns banned. All of those are things that California has to some extent or another. And it does reduce gun crime in the state. I think we could do things better, true. I disagree with the idea that because one mass shooting happened, our current gun law does nothing, and therefore we shouldn't have it at all. That really wasn't my point; my point was to point out that despite California having all these laws that have been clamored for years by gun control activists, it still did not prevent the mass shooting. Because like you said, mass shootings only make up about 1% of the firearm homicide rates. That's not to say gun control laws shouldn't be passed; it's only demonstrating that many gun control activists don't care about gun control as a whole, but only when shit doesn't go 'according to plan.' Cops get shot or urban gangsters die? NBD. Some middle class white people die? Fuck, we gotta do something. See why I'm skeptical as to motive and reasoning? California has made some progress in that it has much better social programs than states like say Mississippi or Louisiana, along with strong gun control laws. It's also a much larger state as you mentioned so it can afford many of these programs. For other states to really be able to get such programs, better enforcement of gun control laws, etc. you'd need the Federal government to step in. That's only going to happen when people stop doing things like shaming law abiding gun owners, stop suggesting ridiculous shit like 'we should look at the 2nd amendment' etc. Just to both of your two points: One mass shooting does not either point out our current gun laws do nothing, nor does it argue for more gun laws. The "do something!" trend is absolutely the wrong approach. These laws should work on their merits. It should impact crime without unduly punishing lawful gun owners, and be shown to actually have some effect on criminals rather than just burdening the law abiding. I don't speak for either of you, but for myself, it's these "activists for a day" types that want to allege complicity in murder and inadequacy and total ignorance of all past legislation that really hinder progressive compromise in this area (and repeal of bad legislation masquerading as gun control legislation). My point was always the fact that most people are really 'activists for a day' or 'gun abolitionists' masquerading as gun control advocates. It's not about whether I disagree whether those laws work or not, it's the fact that the most recent shooting demonstrated how the liberal media and many 'activists' didn't have a whole lot of material to work from in order to push their anti-gun agenda. But if the same shooter performed the shooting with say an AR-15, it would be like all hell broke loose. And just as a side note, for people who keep talking shit about the 2nd Amendment and how it is a loose interpretation of it, I'm fairly certain that earlier drafts of the 2nd Amendment did actually explicitly state the right to private firearms. So the idea that the Founding Father's did not intend for the 2nd Amendment to guarantee private citizens ownership of firearms is abit asinine, especially when you're looking at the historical context of the Constitution, and earlier drafts of the 2nd Amendment, along with the history of firearms, firearm laws, and how the courts have generally ruled in favor of firearm ownership in the United States. I wholeheartedly agree. Honest to God, the slice of debate present here is just the kind I observe in town halls and debates and news articles. Just do something! Doesn't make a lick of difference if it would've affected today's tragedy ... hell, it doesn't even matter if it stops even one guy intent on doing crime from getting a gun. What matters is we did something for gun control, there's a new law on the books we can feel good about, and to hell with what it does to lawful gun owners just trying to defend themselves, their family, and their stuff. It's all just that ratcheting wrench. It only goes one way: your lawful purchase, carry, and use in self defense of a firearm goes down. No repeals back the other way if it didn't work or just made the whole thing more expensive. One more quarter turn towards your second amendment rights going poof. Second amendment rights that we're going to not-so-subtly pretend never existed in the amendment. Yesterday's cabal of gun haters got their laws, like the DC gun laws preventing guns at home from being operable. It took the Court of Appeals/Supreme Court to step in and hold everybody up on rending it impossible to use them in the absolutely lawful purpose of self-defense. Today's gang is heading in the same direction. Why do you need that gun at home, don't you know it just increases the chance of death by gun? Don't you know American gun culture is bad? Don't you know about the traumatic effect inflicted on the ENTIRE country? Don't you know the NRA really are the devil, and aligned politicians actually don't care about dead kids? If those kind of arguments worked, the 2nd amendment would have been fully repealed by now. I'm not going to agree with you on some of your favored gun control measures, particularly on magazines and required classes. I do somewhat agree on pointing out the moral granstanding/moral issues behind it all. If no preservation of gun freedom is worth even one more death, then you set a high moral bar for the rest to debate around. After reading your posts many times, I would say one this is extremely consistent in your world view... The top priority is that everyone has the right to own a gun. And you don't appear to give a shit about who gets killed by those guns or even that people are trained to use them appropriately. Where on your list of priorities does, "people not getting murdered by guns" lie? I've never once heard you offer anything in the way of empathy for any of the hundred victims of US mass shootings, but you appear enthusiastic about defending the rights of anyone (even untrained or unstable people) to carry and use firearms. Is that accurate?I'm only going off what I've seen in your posts. Maybe I missed the ones about the victims, but the majority (or all) of what I've read is simply you addressing gun ownership. I'm not trying to shit talk you, I just really want to know if that's something you think about at all? If I missed it, my apologies, too many posts to comb through. I've had enough time to read your recent posts. To put it quite simply, you've shown such a willingness to demonize and not understand empathy from people who disagree with you, that I picture it will take several years before you can move out of the frame of "you don't appear to give a shit" ... "is that accurate." I will continue to read your posts. I won't entirely disagree with what you say about me in this post. Recently I've been emotional about this topic and justifiably angry with how many people die from firearms in the US. My intention isn't to demonize people, though I'm sure I've not done the best job of making that clear. This whole business of cleaning up the gun deaths in the US is a messy discussion. You can disagree with me, but I still don't see you saying anything about the people dying in these shootings. All the posts I read from you are concerned with gun rights. Reading this leads me to believe it's not a concern for you. Usually I would expect people address the things they are most concerned with first, which has me question what priority the victims have for you? How do all the deaths impact you? How does it feel when a hardened criminal breaks into your home, and then either greatly physically harms someone in your household or kills someone? See, anyone can play that game. That's why you cannot appeal to emotion, because anyone can make up some bullshit sob story. You have to argue with factual knowledge. Of which thus far recently, lots of people have really failed to do.
I'm not sure how it feels, I've never had anyone break into my home and hurt someone I care about.
But I can tell you how witnessing all of these shootings on American news makes me feel, because I have experienced that, we all have.
We can all state our feelings about that subject, because at this point it's a universal experience. We can also state our feelings on anything we've experience or experienced through another or the news. It doesn't make it less legit, only second hand, but make no mistake that it still has an impact on people.
One of my best friends witnessed a guy walk into a restaurant, pull out a gun and ask if anyone was Christian. One guy raised his hand, and then the gunman asked him to come over and he shot him in the head, then shot himself. That's not the only story like that I've heard from someone in our country. I feel angry about that shit and mostly sad because I see how it changed my friend.
And if you have been broken into and had family hurt, you can by all means share you feelings about that and they would be legit to share. I'm not trying to get anyone to admit to feeling something particular, I just wanted to hear the side of people that care more about other people than individual rights.
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On November 13 2018 19:54 Simberto wrote:
Yeah, but notice how the terrorists usually didn't have guns? Because it is HARD to get a gun in the UK. You can't really make it hard to get knives, because those have an actual purpose besides killing things.
And sure, people without guns can be dangerous to. Just far less dangerous than the same person with a gun. If i encounter a criminal, i would be far more comfortable if none of us have a gun, as opposed to if both of us have one. Both with a gun makes the encounter mostly a coinflip with one of us ending up dead, while none with a gun means i can just give the criminal my tv, and don't have a 50% chance of ending up dead.
Tell that to the war vet I mentioned. While he was in need of care(aka he wasn't a threat) he was almost beaten to death. Similar cases happen everywhere. It's not about guns, it's about people.
And americans are NOT europeans behind an ocean. They're totally diferent people. e.g. Czech Republic has very benevolent access to the guns and can be compared to half of the states in US(more or less). Yet we don't kill ourselves with guns and we don't kill others with guns. That's because we're different. Similarly UK & US is different. US has many issues overall and it requires social changes not just gun ban, it won't solve anything unless you can guarantee there won't be a black market with guns. Gun ban will help with the suicides but it will piss people which will increase agressiveness in the society. And you still have to solve places where the police arives after 30 minutes IN THE BEST CASES!
Anyway, if you ever come to CZ remember, there's plenty of guns here. Sure, we're nowhere near US levels but on average every 11th person has a gun(900k guns for almost 11m people), 300k gun owners and steadily rising(2k per year). But since we're different it works here. We're not like west countries, we're not like US(concealed carry vs open carry). FFS even Germany vs CZ is an insane difference in people.
Benevolent access to firearms doesn't mean every criminal will have a gun and people will be shooting each other like in the movies from the "wild west"  Breivik didn't get any here and had to find another sources to name the most infamous case.
|
On November 14 2018 18:38 deacon.frost wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2018 19:54 Simberto wrote:
Yeah, but notice how the terrorists usually didn't have guns? Because it is HARD to get a gun in the UK. You can't really make it hard to get knives, because those have an actual purpose besides killing things.
And sure, people without guns can be dangerous to. Just far less dangerous than the same person with a gun. If i encounter a criminal, i would be far more comfortable if none of us have a gun, as opposed to if both of us have one. Both with a gun makes the encounter mostly a coinflip with one of us ending up dead, while none with a gun means i can just give the criminal my tv, and don't have a 50% chance of ending up dead. Tell that to the war vet I mentioned. While he was in need of care(aka he wasn't a threat) he was almost beaten to death. Similar cases happen everywhere. It's not about guns, it's about people. And americans are NOT europeans behind an ocean. They're totally diferent people. e.g. Czech Republic has very benevolent access to the guns and can be compared to half of the states in US(more or less). Yet we don't kill ourselves with guns and we don't kill others with guns. That's because we're different. Similarly UK & US is different. US has many issues overall and it requires social changes not just gun ban, it won't solve anything unless you can guarantee there won't be a black market with guns. Gun ban will help with the suicides but it will piss people which will increase agressiveness in the society. And you still have to solve places where the police arives after 30 minutes IN THE BEST CASES! Anyway, if you ever come to CZ remember, there's plenty of guns here. Sure, we're nowhere near US levels but on average every 11th person has a gun(900k guns for almost 11m people), 300k gun owners and steadily rising(2k per year). But since we're different it works here. We're not like west countries, we're not like US(concealed carry vs open carry). FFS even Germany vs CZ is an insane difference in people. Benevolent access to firearms doesn't mean every criminal will have a gun and people will be shooting each other like in the movies from the "wild west" Breivik didn't get any here and had to find another sources to name the most infamous case.
The last part is pretty important. Breivik was not able to get his firearms illegally in CZ, and had to get them legally in Norway instead (Tho he did manage to get extended mags illegally through the US mind you). Since then Norway has added even more restrictions to how and which weapons you can procure. The weapon he used is no longer attainable in Norway for hunting purposes, and there's a 2 year waiting period to get semi automatic rifles for competition shooting (and you have to remain active in a shooting club during this time).
This is how it's suppose to work. When a flaw is found, you fix the flaw. Breivik 2.0 will have a much much harder time doing what he did because of his predecessor. In the US, there is literally zero will from politicians in change to fix a single thing when it comes to gun laws on a national level, leaving history to repeat itself indefinitely.
|
The guy that shot 9 people in 2016 in Munich paid 4'000.00 € (~4800.00$) for the pistol he used (same pistol as breivik which "inspired" him).
He still got one but it was expensive and, if i remember the article correctly, took him several months.
|
|
|
On November 14 2018 13:41 ShambhalaWar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2018 12:06 Danglars wrote:On November 13 2018 11:40 ShambhalaWar wrote:On November 13 2018 11:15 Danglars wrote:On November 13 2018 10:39 ShambhalaWar wrote:On November 11 2018 19:27 Danglars wrote:On November 11 2018 16:08 superstartran wrote:On November 11 2018 12:32 Danglars wrote:On November 11 2018 10:44 Blazinghand wrote:
All of those are things that California has to some extent or another. And it does reduce gun crime in the state. I think we could do things better, true. I disagree with the idea that because one mass shooting happened, our current gun law does nothing, and therefore we shouldn't have it at all. On November 11 2018 11:54 superstartran wrote:On November 11 2018 10:44 Blazinghand wrote:
[quote]
All of those are things that California has to some extent or another. And it does reduce gun crime in the state. I think we could do things better, true. I disagree with the idea that because one mass shooting happened, our current gun law does nothing, and therefore we shouldn't have it at all. That really wasn't my point; my point was to point out that despite California having all these laws that have been clamored for years by gun control activists, it still did not prevent the mass shooting. Because like you said, mass shootings only make up about 1% of the firearm homicide rates. That's not to say gun control laws shouldn't be passed; it's only demonstrating that many gun control activists don't care about gun control as a whole, but only when shit doesn't go 'according to plan.' Cops get shot or urban gangsters die? NBD. Some middle class white people die? Fuck, we gotta do something. See why I'm skeptical as to motive and reasoning? California has made some progress in that it has much better social programs than states like say Mississippi or Louisiana, along with strong gun control laws. It's also a much larger state as you mentioned so it can afford many of these programs. For other states to really be able to get such programs, better enforcement of gun control laws, etc. you'd need the Federal government to step in. That's only going to happen when people stop doing things like shaming law abiding gun owners, stop suggesting ridiculous shit like 'we should look at the 2nd amendment' etc. Just to both of your two points: One mass shooting does not either point out our current gun laws do nothing, nor does it argue for more gun laws. The "do something!" trend is absolutely the wrong approach. These laws should work on their merits. It should impact crime without unduly punishing lawful gun owners, and be shown to actually have some effect on criminals rather than just burdening the law abiding. I don't speak for either of you, but for myself, it's these "activists for a day" types that want to allege complicity in murder and inadequacy and total ignorance of all past legislation that really hinder progressive compromise in this area (and repeal of bad legislation masquerading as gun control legislation). My point was always the fact that most people are really 'activists for a day' or 'gun abolitionists' masquerading as gun control advocates. It's not about whether I disagree whether those laws work or not, it's the fact that the most recent shooting demonstrated how the liberal media and many 'activists' didn't have a whole lot of material to work from in order to push their anti-gun agenda. But if the same shooter performed the shooting with say an AR-15, it would be like all hell broke loose. And just as a side note, for people who keep talking shit about the 2nd Amendment and how it is a loose interpretation of it, I'm fairly certain that earlier drafts of the 2nd Amendment did actually explicitly state the right to private firearms. So the idea that the Founding Father's did not intend for the 2nd Amendment to guarantee private citizens ownership of firearms is abit asinine, especially when you're looking at the historical context of the Constitution, and earlier drafts of the 2nd Amendment, along with the history of firearms, firearm laws, and how the courts have generally ruled in favor of firearm ownership in the United States. I wholeheartedly agree. Honest to God, the slice of debate present here is just the kind I observe in town halls and debates and news articles. Just do something! Doesn't make a lick of difference if it would've affected today's tragedy ... hell, it doesn't even matter if it stops even one guy intent on doing crime from getting a gun. What matters is we did something for gun control, there's a new law on the books we can feel good about, and to hell with what it does to lawful gun owners just trying to defend themselves, their family, and their stuff. It's all just that ratcheting wrench. It only goes one way: your lawful purchase, carry, and use in self defense of a firearm goes down. No repeals back the other way if it didn't work or just made the whole thing more expensive. One more quarter turn towards your second amendment rights going poof. Second amendment rights that we're going to not-so-subtly pretend never existed in the amendment. Yesterday's cabal of gun haters got their laws, like the DC gun laws preventing guns at home from being operable. It took the Court of Appeals/Supreme Court to step in and hold everybody up on rending it impossible to use them in the absolutely lawful purpose of self-defense. Today's gang is heading in the same direction. Why do you need that gun at home, don't you know it just increases the chance of death by gun? Don't you know American gun culture is bad? Don't you know about the traumatic effect inflicted on the ENTIRE country? Don't you know the NRA really are the devil, and aligned politicians actually don't care about dead kids? If those kind of arguments worked, the 2nd amendment would have been fully repealed by now. I'm not going to agree with you on some of your favored gun control measures, particularly on magazines and required classes. I do somewhat agree on pointing out the moral granstanding/moral issues behind it all. If no preservation of gun freedom is worth even one more death, then you set a high moral bar for the rest to debate around. After reading your posts many times, I would say one this is extremely consistent in your world view... The top priority is that everyone has the right to own a gun. And you don't appear to give a shit about who gets killed by those guns or even that people are trained to use them appropriately. Where on your list of priorities does, "people not getting murdered by guns" lie? I've never once heard you offer anything in the way of empathy for any of the hundred victims of US mass shootings, but you appear enthusiastic about defending the rights of anyone (even untrained or unstable people) to carry and use firearms. Is that accurate?I'm only going off what I've seen in your posts. Maybe I missed the ones about the victims, but the majority (or all) of what I've read is simply you addressing gun ownership. I'm not trying to shit talk you, I just really want to know if that's something you think about at all? If I missed it, my apologies, too many posts to comb through. I've had enough time to read your recent posts. To put it quite simply, you've shown such a willingness to demonize and not understand empathy from people who disagree with you, that I picture it will take several years before you can move out of the frame of "you don't appear to give a shit" ... "is that accurate." I will continue to read your posts. I won't entirely disagree with what you say about me in this post. Recently I've been emotional about this topic and justifiably angry with how many people die from firearms in the US. My intention isn't to demonize people, though I'm sure I've not done the best job of making that clear. This whole business of cleaning up the gun deaths in the US is a messy discussion. You can disagree with me, but I still don't see you saying anything about the people dying in these shootings. All the posts I read from you are concerned with gun rights. Reading this leads me to believe it's not a concern for you. Usually I would expect people address the things they are most concerned with first, which has me question what priority the victims have for you? How do all the deaths impact you? You will find zero fertile ground with me if you remain in the perspective of thinking I have no empathy for dead people in shootings, since I don't regale you with tales of how I'm kept up at night and how deeply troubled I am at each new incident this year. I compare you to some religious people I know that take an absence of "thoughts and prayers" explicitly said to mean you only care to politicize the deaths and smear your hated groups and capitalize on your policy agenda. I understand that you're emotional about this topic, so I'll excuse the implication that I don't give a shit about the victims because I'm interested in this debate here not to swing too far against civil liberties in the wake of these events. I'm asking you what the impact is because I genuinely want to know. What I find is that it's helpful actually know that, because it doesn't get stated enough imo. These threads are 90% conversations about definitions of what something is or individual rights, but not enough is said about our emotions. Even if people want to believe they aren't emotional, emotions are present because I can see how frustrated people get with each other. When everyone is just talking about those rights and definitions it's actually really hard for me to know if they care about what feels like it matters most, peoples' lives. If people don't say they care, I'm not sure how I'm supposed to know. It's a false assumption to assume everyone cares. The crazy thing is that if we all just stated that we cared most about the victims then we would all be more alike than we are different... isn't that nuts? It's definitely what I give a shit about the most, that more people don't die. I'm sure we could all get there together... if that really is the common ground we share.
You want honest sharing of our emotions because you sincerely want to know? My advice is to leave off the accusations of "not giving a shit about victims," because rudely accusing people of the blackest sentiments is the shortest way to never hear the true feelings of the heart. Let time heal your reputation.+ Show Spoiler +On June 20 2018 12:27 ShambhalaWar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2018 00:22 Danglars wrote:On June 18 2018 16:21 ShambhalaWar wrote:On June 18 2018 10:18 Danglars wrote:On June 17 2018 23:46 ShambhalaWar wrote:On June 12 2018 16:27 Kyadytim wrote:
Five people dead qualifies as a mass shooting, right?
In all of the furor over school shootings, it sometimes gets missed that this sort of domestic situation is also a major issue.
In short, the police were called for domestic violence, and when they arrived the man involved shot one of the officers and took four children, two of whom were his, hostage. By the end of the day, he and all four of the children were dead at his hands.
The officer is alive but in critical condition. Do they have to be dead people? https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/17/us/new-jersey-art-festival-shooting/index.htmlGo team NRA! Deaths are just an excuse to rally the rhetoric. I'd say deaths are people that can no longer do ANYTHING, because someone forcefully took everything they had and ever will have... forever. That's what real "taking rights away" is. And the reason the needle doesn't move is because congress (is bought out by the gun lobby) doesn't enact laws limiting assholes from carrying guns. Why don't you go back to the last post I quoted you and answer any of the questions you dodged... there were plenty of statistics there spelling out how the vast majority of this county is in favor of gun control and despite that, a republican controlled government won't do anything about it. Not to mention you, I've never seen you even hint at a solution. Can you tell me why when I literally just told you that 30 people were shot over nothing, the first thing that came to your mind wasn't "Holy shit, I hope their ok?! How do we prevent this from ever happening again?"... Instead it was, "I hope they don't take my guns away :'(" ? The only reason you don't give a shit about 30 people getting shot is because it doesn't in anyway affect your small world, past the fact that your terrified of living in the world without a gun. It's New Jersey and a huge festival, there were definitely people there with guns (including police)... nobody stopped shit from happening by having a gun. They never do... and they never will. Honestly, more than anything, I really do think you're a russian toll. All your posts I've read are heartless vomiting up of fox news BS about gun rights in America. Talking about "demonizing citizens" and "taking away rights" because I'm tired of innocent people getting killed for nothing... Who talks like that? Blaming Team NRA after deaths only serves to show you’re after political axes to grind. I wouldn’t accuse others of “vomiting up” BS when you vomit out these lines blaming NRA after a tragedy. If you sell guns and make lobbying for the sale of guns their entire business... Then it's their fucking responsibility to do so in a way that doesn't end up with sooooo many people shot and killed. Because that's the way our country works. You can't own a chemical factory and not give a shit about the waste you create while you poison the population around the factory, because your worried it cuts into your bottom line. That's actually against the law, it's called negligence. The same thing is true for guns. Your good buddies (NRA), don't really care if you get shot or your family gets shot or your neighbor... etc... as long as you buy guns and ammo from the people who give them money to lobby for them. If they cared they would lobby for ANY legislation to make gun ownership safer for all the public, but they don't. They just take money from large gun companies and lobby for no laws. Like any large corporation they have an unquenchable thirst for greed, money and power. Bump stocks are perfect example. Useless for anything but killing people, but after Vegas they said no to banning them. Money... I'll say it again slowly. M O N E Y. I know you think they love you, but it's really about the money. Let me translate that into something that makes more sense for you though, "LIBERALS WANT TO TAKE ALL MY GUNS!!!! SUPRESSING CITIZENSSSSS, HOW DARE YOU! 2ND AMENDMENT DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING... ALEX JONES... SANDY HOOK WAS FAKED." Your welcome... Took me hours reading through google translate under "snowflake" BUT I GOT THERE EVENTUALLY :D Here's to you reading this post while your mind slowly goes blank... and you pick back up at the end of it, right here... and then read back to me fox news headlines in your response post. User was temp banned for this post.
|
On November 14 2018 13:27 ShambhalaWar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2018 21:10 superstartran wrote:On November 13 2018 19:54 Simberto wrote:
Yeah, but notice how the terrorists usually didn't have guns? Because it is HARD to get a gun in the UK. You can't really make it hard to get knives, because those have an actual purpose besides killing things.
And sure, people without guns can be dangerous to. Just far less dangerous than the same person with a gun. If i encounter a criminal, i would be far more comfortable if none of us have a gun, as opposed to if both of us have one. Both with a gun makes the encounter mostly a coinflip with one of us ending up dead, while none with a gun means i can just give the criminal my tv, and don't have a 50% chance of ending up dead. 1) The UK in general has less violent crime overall, and started out with less violent crime than the United States even prior to this. 2) The UK is an island country, it makes it much easier to regulate firearms if you want a very strict environment. Believing that the United States could just implement similar laws and just call it a day is asinine. Not to mention, you haven't even talked about how one would handle the current 900 million+ firearms currently in circulation. What are you gonna do, tell those lawful gun owners that now their firearms are illegal and that we're having a Federal buy back program? Good luck. 3) You're comparing a much geographically smaller country to the United States, that has a far more homogeneous culture than the United States. If you're separating the Latino population from the white population (which you should; Latinos are culturally and socioeconomically different from your standard white population), the U.S. white population is like 62%ish or something like that. Meanwhile the UK is 87% white, as in, 87% white/non latino with very similar cultural beliefs and backgrounds. These things matter alot. With Australia being the only example I can think of, pretty much every other country with a high mixture of different cultures and ethnic make-ups always have issues with crime. 4) Parts of the United States has much more in common with 3rd world countries than 1st world countries. Comparing places like Montana, Idaho, Nebraska, Louisiana, and Mississippi against the UK is not really a fair or equal comparison. It's one of the major reasons why instituting a gun ban wouldn't work. Washington D.C. had a handgun ban prior to 2008, and yet homicide rates dropped at a natural rate despite the handgun ban being lifted. It's crazy talk! Number of firearms doesn't mean an increase in homicides?! And before flying off the handle with some more moral grandstanding, I've already stated that there should be more strict regulations. You can throw all that other stuff out there... but objectively, nothing Simberto said is wrong. He is 100% right.
People can kill without a gun. In most cases one a person has decided that they ar going to kill someone they are going to kill regardless of choice of weapon.
You guys crack me up so hard. I've already conceded that there needs to be stricter regulations. However, if you are going to try and solve mass shootings you need more than laws.
On November 14 2018 23:08 JimmiC wrote:
There seems to be this odd circle that happens where gun control speak about it. The people who are against it come back with how it won't stop EVERY shooting. I think everyone on the control side agrees with this, the goal is to have less by making it harder.
Also, at least on this thread most of the pro gun people are alright with some forms of gun control and at least more then they have right now. But then when people bring it up they go back to square one of "don't take all the guns". It's odd.
Because even if we straight ban all guns right now, it wouldn't stop mass shootings. Mass shootings are more of a mental health issue more than a firearm issue (although all states should have a red flag law, some do not).
And the crux of the issue is that your side typically is not arguing in good faith, as evidenced to the fact that none of you still recognize the fact that the shooting database you used in a highly dishonest way by the BBC and PBS.
Failure to recognize highly dishonest tactics on the liberal side will only mean that my side will not budge one bit. It's once you start recognizing faulty arguments, shitty appeals to emotion not rooted in facts, etc that you will find people who will compromise.
In this very thread you have people trying to readjust the definition of a mass shooting to fit their argument. That should be called out by you, because by doing so you only further create division between both sides, because gun rights advocates will believe that you are dishonest when you do shit like that, and justifiably so. So excuse me and Danglers when we don't take many of you seriously when you say 'we aren't coming after your guns'
|
|
|
On November 15 2018 01:59 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2018 01:15 superstartran wrote:On November 14 2018 13:27 ShambhalaWar wrote:On November 13 2018 21:10 superstartran wrote:On November 13 2018 19:54 Simberto wrote:
Yeah, but notice how the terrorists usually didn't have guns? Because it is HARD to get a gun in the UK. You can't really make it hard to get knives, because those have an actual purpose besides killing things.
And sure, people without guns can be dangerous to. Just far less dangerous than the same person with a gun. If i encounter a criminal, i would be far more comfortable if none of us have a gun, as opposed to if both of us have one. Both with a gun makes the encounter mostly a coinflip with one of us ending up dead, while none with a gun means i can just give the criminal my tv, and don't have a 50% chance of ending up dead. 1) The UK in general has less violent crime overall, and started out with less violent crime than the United States even prior to this. 2) The UK is an island country, it makes it much easier to regulate firearms if you want a very strict environment. Believing that the United States could just implement similar laws and just call it a day is asinine. Not to mention, you haven't even talked about how one would handle the current 900 million+ firearms currently in circulation. What are you gonna do, tell those lawful gun owners that now their firearms are illegal and that we're having a Federal buy back program? Good luck. 3) You're comparing a much geographically smaller country to the United States, that has a far more homogeneous culture than the United States. If you're separating the Latino population from the white population (which you should; Latinos are culturally and socioeconomically different from your standard white population), the U.S. white population is like 62%ish or something like that. Meanwhile the UK is 87% white, as in, 87% white/non latino with very similar cultural beliefs and backgrounds. These things matter alot. With Australia being the only example I can think of, pretty much every other country with a high mixture of different cultures and ethnic make-ups always have issues with crime. 4) Parts of the United States has much more in common with 3rd world countries than 1st world countries. Comparing places like Montana, Idaho, Nebraska, Louisiana, and Mississippi against the UK is not really a fair or equal comparison. It's one of the major reasons why instituting a gun ban wouldn't work. Washington D.C. had a handgun ban prior to 2008, and yet homicide rates dropped at a natural rate despite the handgun ban being lifted. It's crazy talk! Number of firearms doesn't mean an increase in homicides?! And before flying off the handle with some more moral grandstanding, I've already stated that there should be more strict regulations. You can throw all that other stuff out there... but objectively, nothing Simberto said is wrong. He is 100% right. People can kill without a gun. In most cases one a person has decided that they ar going to kill someone they are going to kill regardless of choice of weapon. You guys crack me up so hard. I've already conceded that there needs to be stricter regulations. However, if you are going to try and solve mass shootings you need more than laws. On November 14 2018 23:08 JimmiC wrote:
There seems to be this odd circle that happens where gun control speak about it. The people who are against it come back with how it won't stop EVERY shooting. I think everyone on the control side agrees with this, the goal is to have less by making it harder.
Also, at least on this thread most of the pro gun people are alright with some forms of gun control and at least more then they have right now. But then when people bring it up they go back to square one of "don't take all the guns". It's odd. Because even if we straight ban all guns right now, it wouldn't stop mass shootings. Mass shootings are more of a mental health issue more than a firearm issue (although all states should have a red flag law, some do not). And the crux of the issue is that your side typically is not arguing in good faith, as evidenced to the fact that none of you still recognize the fact that the shooting database you used in a highly dishonest way by the BBC and PBS. Failure to recognize highly dishonest tactics on the liberal side will only mean that my side will not budge one bit. It's once you start recognizing faulty arguments, shitty appeals to emotion not rooted in facts, etc that you will find people who will compromise. In this very thread you have people trying to readjust the definition of a mass shooting to fit their argument. That should be called out by you, because by doing so you only further create division between both sides, because gun rights advocates will believe that you are dishonest when you do shit like that, and justifiably so. So excuse me and Danglers when we don't take many of you seriously when you say 'we aren't coming after your guns' It's odd to me how you clump us all in as if we are one person. I never used that database, I just stopped talking about it with you because you kept freaking out as if I did, feel free to go back and read my posts without that clouding your judgement. People on "my side" are looking to reduce gun violence of all kinds, this is mass shooting thread so that is the theme, but it is very natural and makes perfect sense why it strays to other related and unrelated versions of gun violence. It's also odd that I would completely support the suggestions you have, so I'm more or less agreeing with you and yet you are still so mad at me. And people have called out people on the gun control side for shitty arguments and it getting overly emotional, now I don't think that has happened on your side but considering the difference in size that makes sense. What confuses me is what is your side? If you support everything you posted back a while ago we are on the same side. Lets do that and see if/how much it helps. Then depending on the results further adjustments can be made. There is no perfect solution and it will take time for the culture to change. But not starting because it is not perfect is terrible because things are trending to stay the same or get worse. Also, when people say "your Canadian why do you care?" I say it is because this is way to common, and who knows what is getting through. https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/man-arrested-after-20-guns-found-in-car-at-rainbow-bridge/ar-BBPFW42?li=AAggFp5
Lol k. I pointed out completely faulty logic on your part and even pointed out evidence after you attempted to ridicule me by saying "you watch too much TV". Then you try and say you didn't even talk about the database with me. Seriously?
And things are not trending in the wrong direction. Factually speaking there's less gun violence now in the us than there was 10 years ago, and 20 years ago.
|
|
|
I would argue that in the 1990s and pre-9/11 there was better gun control in the form of better enforcement of existing gun laws. One of the things that took place after the now legendary Brady Bill and the assault rifle ban of 1994 was the republican congress moving resources away from the federal agencies that would police illegal fire arms sales. Including the FBI and ATF. And a adjustment in regulations over how the ATF is allowed to trace fire arms and their sales, including a prohibiting them from using computers for a number of tasks. The best change to the current system would be to fund those agencies better and remove restrictive regulations that no longer make sense in the digital era.
|
On November 15 2018 02:34 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2018 01:59 JimmiC wrote:On November 15 2018 01:15 superstartran wrote:On November 14 2018 13:27 ShambhalaWar wrote:On November 13 2018 21:10 superstartran wrote:On November 13 2018 19:54 Simberto wrote:
Yeah, but notice how the terrorists usually didn't have guns? Because it is HARD to get a gun in the UK. You can't really make it hard to get knives, because those have an actual purpose besides killing things.
And sure, people without guns can be dangerous to. Just far less dangerous than the same person with a gun. If i encounter a criminal, i would be far more comfortable if none of us have a gun, as opposed to if both of us have one. Both with a gun makes the encounter mostly a coinflip with one of us ending up dead, while none with a gun means i can just give the criminal my tv, and don't have a 50% chance of ending up dead. 1) The UK in general has less violent crime overall, and started out with less violent crime than the United States even prior to this. 2) The UK is an island country, it makes it much easier to regulate firearms if you want a very strict environment. Believing that the United States could just implement similar laws and just call it a day is asinine. Not to mention, you haven't even talked about how one would handle the current 900 million+ firearms currently in circulation. What are you gonna do, tell those lawful gun owners that now their firearms are illegal and that we're having a Federal buy back program? Good luck. 3) You're comparing a much geographically smaller country to the United States, that has a far more homogeneous culture than the United States. If you're separating the Latino population from the white population (which you should; Latinos are culturally and socioeconomically different from your standard white population), the U.S. white population is like 62%ish or something like that. Meanwhile the UK is 87% white, as in, 87% white/non latino with very similar cultural beliefs and backgrounds. These things matter alot. With Australia being the only example I can think of, pretty much every other country with a high mixture of different cultures and ethnic make-ups always have issues with crime. 4) Parts of the United States has much more in common with 3rd world countries than 1st world countries. Comparing places like Montana, Idaho, Nebraska, Louisiana, and Mississippi against the UK is not really a fair or equal comparison. It's one of the major reasons why instituting a gun ban wouldn't work. Washington D.C. had a handgun ban prior to 2008, and yet homicide rates dropped at a natural rate despite the handgun ban being lifted. It's crazy talk! Number of firearms doesn't mean an increase in homicides?! And before flying off the handle with some more moral grandstanding, I've already stated that there should be more strict regulations. You can throw all that other stuff out there... but objectively, nothing Simberto said is wrong. He is 100% right. People can kill without a gun. In most cases one a person has decided that they ar going to kill someone they are going to kill regardless of choice of weapon. You guys crack me up so hard. I've already conceded that there needs to be stricter regulations. However, if you are going to try and solve mass shootings you need more than laws. On November 14 2018 23:08 JimmiC wrote:
There seems to be this odd circle that happens where gun control speak about it. The people who are against it come back with how it won't stop EVERY shooting. I think everyone on the control side agrees with this, the goal is to have less by making it harder.
Also, at least on this thread most of the pro gun people are alright with some forms of gun control and at least more then they have right now. But then when people bring it up they go back to square one of "don't take all the guns". It's odd. Because even if we straight ban all guns right now, it wouldn't stop mass shootings. Mass shootings are more of a mental health issue more than a firearm issue (although all states should have a red flag law, some do not). And the crux of the issue is that your side typically is not arguing in good faith, as evidenced to the fact that none of you still recognize the fact that the shooting database you used in a highly dishonest way by the BBC and PBS. Failure to recognize highly dishonest tactics on the liberal side will only mean that my side will not budge one bit. It's once you start recognizing faulty arguments, shitty appeals to emotion not rooted in facts, etc that you will find people who will compromise. In this very thread you have people trying to readjust the definition of a mass shooting to fit their argument. That should be called out by you, because by doing so you only further create division between both sides, because gun rights advocates will believe that you are dishonest when you do shit like that, and justifiably so. So excuse me and Danglers when we don't take many of you seriously when you say 'we aren't coming after your guns' It's odd to me how you clump us all in as if we are one person. I never used that database, I just stopped talking about it with you because you kept freaking out as if I did, feel free to go back and read my posts without that clouding your judgement. People on "my side" are looking to reduce gun violence of all kinds, this is mass shooting thread so that is the theme, but it is very natural and makes perfect sense why it strays to other related and unrelated versions of gun violence. It's also odd that I would completely support the suggestions you have, so I'm more or less agreeing with you and yet you are still so mad at me. And people have called out people on the gun control side for shitty arguments and it getting overly emotional, now I don't think that has happened on your side but considering the difference in size that makes sense. What confuses me is what is your side? If you support everything you posted back a while ago we are on the same side. Lets do that and see if/how much it helps. Then depending on the results further adjustments can be made. There is no perfect solution and it will take time for the culture to change. But not starting because it is not perfect is terrible because things are trending to stay the same or get worse. Also, when people say "your Canadian why do you care?" I say it is because this is way to common, and who knows what is getting through. https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/man-arrested-after-20-guns-found-in-car-at-rainbow-bridge/ar-BBPFW42?li=AAggFp5 Lol k. I pointed out completely faulty logic on your part and even pointed out evidence after you attempted to ridicule me by saying "you watch too much TV". Then you try and say you didn't even talk about the database with me. Seriously? And things are not trending in the wrong direction. Factually speaking there's less gun violence now in the us than there was 10 years ago, and 20 years ago.
You are running into a lot of opposition in this thread because of posts like this. You start with "Lol k" which is condescending and dismissive. We are here to have a respectful discussion.
Your opinion that "things are not trending in the wrong direction" is pretty tough to swallow as well. As you and many others have made clear, there are a lot of statistics out there that could be used to argue for or against this point. What really can't be argued, however, is that we are hearing about an awful lot of events where a person with a gun is out to hurt others. And it keeps happening. To many people, this is an indication that progress is NOT being made, and it is entirely reasonable to discuss this in here without it devolving into a bitchy, condescending interpretation of statistics. You are actively preventing this from happening.
|
On November 15 2018 01:15 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2018 13:27 ShambhalaWar wrote:On November 13 2018 21:10 superstartran wrote:On November 13 2018 19:54 Simberto wrote:
Yeah, but notice how the terrorists usually didn't have guns? Because it is HARD to get a gun in the UK. You can't really make it hard to get knives, because those have an actual purpose besides killing things.
And sure, people without guns can be dangerous to. Just far less dangerous than the same person with a gun. If i encounter a criminal, i would be far more comfortable if none of us have a gun, as opposed to if both of us have one. Both with a gun makes the encounter mostly a coinflip with one of us ending up dead, while none with a gun means i can just give the criminal my tv, and don't have a 50% chance of ending up dead. 1) The UK in general has less violent crime overall, and started out with less violent crime than the United States even prior to this. 2) The UK is an island country, it makes it much easier to regulate firearms if you want a very strict environment. Believing that the United States could just implement similar laws and just call it a day is asinine. Not to mention, you haven't even talked about how one would handle the current 900 million+ firearms currently in circulation. What are you gonna do, tell those lawful gun owners that now their firearms are illegal and that we're having a Federal buy back program? Good luck. 3) You're comparing a much geographically smaller country to the United States, that has a far more homogeneous culture than the United States. If you're separating the Latino population from the white population (which you should; Latinos are culturally and socioeconomically different from your standard white population), the U.S. white population is like 62%ish or something like that. Meanwhile the UK is 87% white, as in, 87% white/non latino with very similar cultural beliefs and backgrounds. These things matter alot. With Australia being the only example I can think of, pretty much every other country with a high mixture of different cultures and ethnic make-ups always have issues with crime. 4) Parts of the United States has much more in common with 3rd world countries than 1st world countries. Comparing places like Montana, Idaho, Nebraska, Louisiana, and Mississippi against the UK is not really a fair or equal comparison. It's one of the major reasons why instituting a gun ban wouldn't work. Washington D.C. had a handgun ban prior to 2008, and yet homicide rates dropped at a natural rate despite the handgun ban being lifted. It's crazy talk! Number of firearms doesn't mean an increase in homicides?! And before flying off the handle with some more moral grandstanding, I've already stated that there should be more strict regulations. You can throw all that other stuff out there... but objectively, nothing Simberto said is wrong. He is 100% right. People can kill without a gun. In most cases one a person has decided that they ar going to kill someone they are going to kill regardless of choice of weapon. You guys crack me up so hard. I've already conceded that there needs to be stricter regulations. However, if you are going to try and solve mass shootings you need more than laws.
I call bullshit on this, on two accords:
A) It is a lot easier to kill someone with a gun when compared to common household articles or whatever. There is a reason for this. Guns are designed to be effective killing tools. I doubt that you contest this point.
This also means by laws of logic that it is less easy to kill someone without a gun. There might be other ways of killing people, but they are harder to do, and have a higher chance of failure. This means that when a person decides to kill a person, and has a gun, they are far more likely to succeed than if they have none. I had thought this common knowledge, but apparently it is not.
B) Guns introduce an element of "If i don't kill that person right now, they might kill me" into any interaction. If i suspect a person i am in conflict with might want to fight me, but i am standing 10m away from them, i am mostly save if they don't have a gun. If they do have a gun, and i blink for half a second, i might be dead. That makes me far more likely to preemptively use my gun on that person, just so they don't get me first.
So if i am, say, burglarizing someones home, and hear someone moving about, it suddenly becomes very reasonable to shoot them without any investigation beforehand. If i can reasonably assume that they don't have a gun, this is far less threatening immediately, and i become far less likely to shoot them.
So both the decision to kill someone, and the likelyhood of success are influenced by the availability of guns. As such, your point does not make any sense whatsoever.
|
On November 15 2018 02:48 Aveng3r wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2018 02:34 superstartran wrote:On November 15 2018 01:59 JimmiC wrote:On November 15 2018 01:15 superstartran wrote:On November 14 2018 13:27 ShambhalaWar wrote:On November 13 2018 21:10 superstartran wrote:On November 13 2018 19:54 Simberto wrote:
Yeah, but notice how the terrorists usually didn't have guns? Because it is HARD to get a gun in the UK. You can't really make it hard to get knives, because those have an actual purpose besides killing things.
And sure, people without guns can be dangerous to. Just far less dangerous than the same person with a gun. If i encounter a criminal, i would be far more comfortable if none of us have a gun, as opposed to if both of us have one. Both with a gun makes the encounter mostly a coinflip with one of us ending up dead, while none with a gun means i can just give the criminal my tv, and don't have a 50% chance of ending up dead. 1) The UK in general has less violent crime overall, and started out with less violent crime than the United States even prior to this. 2) The UK is an island country, it makes it much easier to regulate firearms if you want a very strict environment. Believing that the United States could just implement similar laws and just call it a day is asinine. Not to mention, you haven't even talked about how one would handle the current 900 million+ firearms currently in circulation. What are you gonna do, tell those lawful gun owners that now their firearms are illegal and that we're having a Federal buy back program? Good luck. 3) You're comparing a much geographically smaller country to the United States, that has a far more homogeneous culture than the United States. If you're separating the Latino population from the white population (which you should; Latinos are culturally and socioeconomically different from your standard white population), the U.S. white population is like 62%ish or something like that. Meanwhile the UK is 87% white, as in, 87% white/non latino with very similar cultural beliefs and backgrounds. These things matter alot. With Australia being the only example I can think of, pretty much every other country with a high mixture of different cultures and ethnic make-ups always have issues with crime. 4) Parts of the United States has much more in common with 3rd world countries than 1st world countries. Comparing places like Montana, Idaho, Nebraska, Louisiana, and Mississippi against the UK is not really a fair or equal comparison. It's one of the major reasons why instituting a gun ban wouldn't work. Washington D.C. had a handgun ban prior to 2008, and yet homicide rates dropped at a natural rate despite the handgun ban being lifted. It's crazy talk! Number of firearms doesn't mean an increase in homicides?! And before flying off the handle with some more moral grandstanding, I've already stated that there should be more strict regulations. You can throw all that other stuff out there... but objectively, nothing Simberto said is wrong. He is 100% right. People can kill without a gun. In most cases one a person has decided that they ar going to kill someone they are going to kill regardless of choice of weapon. You guys crack me up so hard. I've already conceded that there needs to be stricter regulations. However, if you are going to try and solve mass shootings you need more than laws. On November 14 2018 23:08 JimmiC wrote:
There seems to be this odd circle that happens where gun control speak about it. The people who are against it come back with how it won't stop EVERY shooting. I think everyone on the control side agrees with this, the goal is to have less by making it harder.
Also, at least on this thread most of the pro gun people are alright with some forms of gun control and at least more then they have right now. But then when people bring it up they go back to square one of "don't take all the guns". It's odd. Because even if we straight ban all guns right now, it wouldn't stop mass shootings. Mass shootings are more of a mental health issue more than a firearm issue (although all states should have a red flag law, some do not). And the crux of the issue is that your side typically is not arguing in good faith, as evidenced to the fact that none of you still recognize the fact that the shooting database you used in a highly dishonest way by the BBC and PBS. Failure to recognize highly dishonest tactics on the liberal side will only mean that my side will not budge one bit. It's once you start recognizing faulty arguments, shitty appeals to emotion not rooted in facts, etc that you will find people who will compromise. In this very thread you have people trying to readjust the definition of a mass shooting to fit their argument. That should be called out by you, because by doing so you only further create division between both sides, because gun rights advocates will believe that you are dishonest when you do shit like that, and justifiably so. So excuse me and Danglers when we don't take many of you seriously when you say 'we aren't coming after your guns' It's odd to me how you clump us all in as if we are one person. I never used that database, I just stopped talking about it with you because you kept freaking out as if I did, feel free to go back and read my posts without that clouding your judgement. People on "my side" are looking to reduce gun violence of all kinds, this is mass shooting thread so that is the theme, but it is very natural and makes perfect sense why it strays to other related and unrelated versions of gun violence. It's also odd that I would completely support the suggestions you have, so I'm more or less agreeing with you and yet you are still so mad at me. And people have called out people on the gun control side for shitty arguments and it getting overly emotional, now I don't think that has happened on your side but considering the difference in size that makes sense. What confuses me is what is your side? If you support everything you posted back a while ago we are on the same side. Lets do that and see if/how much it helps. Then depending on the results further adjustments can be made. There is no perfect solution and it will take time for the culture to change. But not starting because it is not perfect is terrible because things are trending to stay the same or get worse. Also, when people say "your Canadian why do you care?" I say it is because this is way to common, and who knows what is getting through. https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/man-arrested-after-20-guns-found-in-car-at-rainbow-bridge/ar-BBPFW42?li=AAggFp5 Lol k. I pointed out completely faulty logic on your part and even pointed out evidence after you attempted to ridicule me by saying "you watch too much TV". Then you try and say you didn't even talk about the database with me. Seriously? And things are not trending in the wrong direction. Factually speaking there's less gun violence now in the us than there was 10 years ago, and 20 years ago. You are running into a lot of opposition in this thread because of posts like this. You start with "Lol k" which is condescending and dismissive. We are here to have a respectful discussion. Your opinion that "things are not trending in the wrong direction" is pretty tough to swallow as well. As you and many others have made clear, there are a lot of statistics out there that could be used to argue for or against this point. What really can't be argued, however, is that we are hearing about an awful lot of events where a person with a gun is out to hurt others. And it keeps happening. To many people, this is an indication that progress is NOT being made, and it is entirely reasonable to discuss this in here without it devolving into a bitchy, condescending interpretation of statistics. You are actively preventing this from happening.
I go "lol k" and act condescending when people refuse to admit that there is blatant dishonest use of highly inflated statistics. There is no reason for me to treat anyone with respect if they aren't going to have an honest debate and have shifting goal posts.
|
On November 15 2018 05:39 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2018 02:48 Aveng3r wrote:On November 15 2018 02:34 superstartran wrote:On November 15 2018 01:59 JimmiC wrote:On November 15 2018 01:15 superstartran wrote:On November 14 2018 13:27 ShambhalaWar wrote:On November 13 2018 21:10 superstartran wrote:On November 13 2018 19:54 Simberto wrote:
Yeah, but notice how the terrorists usually didn't have guns? Because it is HARD to get a gun in the UK. You can't really make it hard to get knives, because those have an actual purpose besides killing things.
And sure, people without guns can be dangerous to. Just far less dangerous than the same person with a gun. If i encounter a criminal, i would be far more comfortable if none of us have a gun, as opposed to if both of us have one. Both with a gun makes the encounter mostly a coinflip with one of us ending up dead, while none with a gun means i can just give the criminal my tv, and don't have a 50% chance of ending up dead. 1) The UK in general has less violent crime overall, and started out with less violent crime than the United States even prior to this. 2) The UK is an island country, it makes it much easier to regulate firearms if you want a very strict environment. Believing that the United States could just implement similar laws and just call it a day is asinine. Not to mention, you haven't even talked about how one would handle the current 900 million+ firearms currently in circulation. What are you gonna do, tell those lawful gun owners that now their firearms are illegal and that we're having a Federal buy back program? Good luck. 3) You're comparing a much geographically smaller country to the United States, that has a far more homogeneous culture than the United States. If you're separating the Latino population from the white population (which you should; Latinos are culturally and socioeconomically different from your standard white population), the U.S. white population is like 62%ish or something like that. Meanwhile the UK is 87% white, as in, 87% white/non latino with very similar cultural beliefs and backgrounds. These things matter alot. With Australia being the only example I can think of, pretty much every other country with a high mixture of different cultures and ethnic make-ups always have issues with crime. 4) Parts of the United States has much more in common with 3rd world countries than 1st world countries. Comparing places like Montana, Idaho, Nebraska, Louisiana, and Mississippi against the UK is not really a fair or equal comparison. It's one of the major reasons why instituting a gun ban wouldn't work. Washington D.C. had a handgun ban prior to 2008, and yet homicide rates dropped at a natural rate despite the handgun ban being lifted. It's crazy talk! Number of firearms doesn't mean an increase in homicides?! And before flying off the handle with some more moral grandstanding, I've already stated that there should be more strict regulations. You can throw all that other stuff out there... but objectively, nothing Simberto said is wrong. He is 100% right. People can kill without a gun. In most cases one a person has decided that they ar going to kill someone they are going to kill regardless of choice of weapon. You guys crack me up so hard. I've already conceded that there needs to be stricter regulations. However, if you are going to try and solve mass shootings you need more than laws. On November 14 2018 23:08 JimmiC wrote:
There seems to be this odd circle that happens where gun control speak about it. The people who are against it come back with how it won't stop EVERY shooting. I think everyone on the control side agrees with this, the goal is to have less by making it harder.
Also, at least on this thread most of the pro gun people are alright with some forms of gun control and at least more then they have right now. But then when people bring it up they go back to square one of "don't take all the guns". It's odd. Because even if we straight ban all guns right now, it wouldn't stop mass shootings. Mass shootings are more of a mental health issue more than a firearm issue (although all states should have a red flag law, some do not). And the crux of the issue is that your side typically is not arguing in good faith, as evidenced to the fact that none of you still recognize the fact that the shooting database you used in a highly dishonest way by the BBC and PBS. Failure to recognize highly dishonest tactics on the liberal side will only mean that my side will not budge one bit. It's once you start recognizing faulty arguments, shitty appeals to emotion not rooted in facts, etc that you will find people who will compromise. In this very thread you have people trying to readjust the definition of a mass shooting to fit their argument. That should be called out by you, because by doing so you only further create division between both sides, because gun rights advocates will believe that you are dishonest when you do shit like that, and justifiably so. So excuse me and Danglers when we don't take many of you seriously when you say 'we aren't coming after your guns' It's odd to me how you clump us all in as if we are one person. I never used that database, I just stopped talking about it with you because you kept freaking out as if I did, feel free to go back and read my posts without that clouding your judgement. People on "my side" are looking to reduce gun violence of all kinds, this is mass shooting thread so that is the theme, but it is very natural and makes perfect sense why it strays to other related and unrelated versions of gun violence. It's also odd that I would completely support the suggestions you have, so I'm more or less agreeing with you and yet you are still so mad at me. And people have called out people on the gun control side for shitty arguments and it getting overly emotional, now I don't think that has happened on your side but considering the difference in size that makes sense. What confuses me is what is your side? If you support everything you posted back a while ago we are on the same side. Lets do that and see if/how much it helps. Then depending on the results further adjustments can be made. There is no perfect solution and it will take time for the culture to change. But not starting because it is not perfect is terrible because things are trending to stay the same or get worse. Also, when people say "your Canadian why do you care?" I say it is because this is way to common, and who knows what is getting through. https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/man-arrested-after-20-guns-found-in-car-at-rainbow-bridge/ar-BBPFW42?li=AAggFp5 Lol k. I pointed out completely faulty logic on your part and even pointed out evidence after you attempted to ridicule me by saying "you watch too much TV". Then you try and say you didn't even talk about the database with me. Seriously? And things are not trending in the wrong direction. Factually speaking there's less gun violence now in the us than there was 10 years ago, and 20 years ago. You are running into a lot of opposition in this thread because of posts like this. You start with "Lol k" which is condescending and dismissive. We are here to have a respectful discussion. Your opinion that "things are not trending in the wrong direction" is pretty tough to swallow as well. As you and many others have made clear, there are a lot of statistics out there that could be used to argue for or against this point. What really can't be argued, however, is that we are hearing about an awful lot of events where a person with a gun is out to hurt others. And it keeps happening. To many people, this is an indication that progress is NOT being made, and it is entirely reasonable to discuss this in here without it devolving into a bitchy, condescending interpretation of statistics. You are actively preventing this from happening. I go "lol k" and act condescending when people refuse to admit that there is blatant dishonest use of highly inflated statistics. There is no reason for me to treat anyone with respect if they aren't going to have an honest debate and have shifting goal posts.
Statistics are often open to interpretation. People interpreting them differently than you is not an acceptable reason to post disrespectfully.
|
On November 15 2018 05:52 Aveng3r wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2018 05:39 superstartran wrote:On November 15 2018 02:48 Aveng3r wrote:On November 15 2018 02:34 superstartran wrote:On November 15 2018 01:59 JimmiC wrote:On November 15 2018 01:15 superstartran wrote:On November 14 2018 13:27 ShambhalaWar wrote:On November 13 2018 21:10 superstartran wrote:On November 13 2018 19:54 Simberto wrote:
Yeah, but notice how the terrorists usually didn't have guns? Because it is HARD to get a gun in the UK. You can't really make it hard to get knives, because those have an actual purpose besides killing things.
And sure, people without guns can be dangerous to. Just far less dangerous than the same person with a gun. If i encounter a criminal, i would be far more comfortable if none of us have a gun, as opposed to if both of us have one. Both with a gun makes the encounter mostly a coinflip with one of us ending up dead, while none with a gun means i can just give the criminal my tv, and don't have a 50% chance of ending up dead. 1) The UK in general has less violent crime overall, and started out with less violent crime than the United States even prior to this. 2) The UK is an island country, it makes it much easier to regulate firearms if you want a very strict environment. Believing that the United States could just implement similar laws and just call it a day is asinine. Not to mention, you haven't even talked about how one would handle the current 900 million+ firearms currently in circulation. What are you gonna do, tell those lawful gun owners that now their firearms are illegal and that we're having a Federal buy back program? Good luck. 3) You're comparing a much geographically smaller country to the United States, that has a far more homogeneous culture than the United States. If you're separating the Latino population from the white population (which you should; Latinos are culturally and socioeconomically different from your standard white population), the U.S. white population is like 62%ish or something like that. Meanwhile the UK is 87% white, as in, 87% white/non latino with very similar cultural beliefs and backgrounds. These things matter alot. With Australia being the only example I can think of, pretty much every other country with a high mixture of different cultures and ethnic make-ups always have issues with crime. 4) Parts of the United States has much more in common with 3rd world countries than 1st world countries. Comparing places like Montana, Idaho, Nebraska, Louisiana, and Mississippi against the UK is not really a fair or equal comparison. It's one of the major reasons why instituting a gun ban wouldn't work. Washington D.C. had a handgun ban prior to 2008, and yet homicide rates dropped at a natural rate despite the handgun ban being lifted. It's crazy talk! Number of firearms doesn't mean an increase in homicides?! And before flying off the handle with some more moral grandstanding, I've already stated that there should be more strict regulations. You can throw all that other stuff out there... but objectively, nothing Simberto said is wrong. He is 100% right. People can kill without a gun. In most cases one a person has decided that they ar going to kill someone they are going to kill regardless of choice of weapon. You guys crack me up so hard. I've already conceded that there needs to be stricter regulations. However, if you are going to try and solve mass shootings you need more than laws. On November 14 2018 23:08 JimmiC wrote:
There seems to be this odd circle that happens where gun control speak about it. The people who are against it come back with how it won't stop EVERY shooting. I think everyone on the control side agrees with this, the goal is to have less by making it harder.
Also, at least on this thread most of the pro gun people are alright with some forms of gun control and at least more then they have right now. But then when people bring it up they go back to square one of "don't take all the guns". It's odd. Because even if we straight ban all guns right now, it wouldn't stop mass shootings. Mass shootings are more of a mental health issue more than a firearm issue (although all states should have a red flag law, some do not). And the crux of the issue is that your side typically is not arguing in good faith, as evidenced to the fact that none of you still recognize the fact that the shooting database you used in a highly dishonest way by the BBC and PBS. Failure to recognize highly dishonest tactics on the liberal side will only mean that my side will not budge one bit. It's once you start recognizing faulty arguments, shitty appeals to emotion not rooted in facts, etc that you will find people who will compromise. In this very thread you have people trying to readjust the definition of a mass shooting to fit their argument. That should be called out by you, because by doing so you only further create division between both sides, because gun rights advocates will believe that you are dishonest when you do shit like that, and justifiably so. So excuse me and Danglers when we don't take many of you seriously when you say 'we aren't coming after your guns' It's odd to me how you clump us all in as if we are one person. I never used that database, I just stopped talking about it with you because you kept freaking out as if I did, feel free to go back and read my posts without that clouding your judgement. People on "my side" are looking to reduce gun violence of all kinds, this is mass shooting thread so that is the theme, but it is very natural and makes perfect sense why it strays to other related and unrelated versions of gun violence. It's also odd that I would completely support the suggestions you have, so I'm more or less agreeing with you and yet you are still so mad at me. And people have called out people on the gun control side for shitty arguments and it getting overly emotional, now I don't think that has happened on your side but considering the difference in size that makes sense. What confuses me is what is your side? If you support everything you posted back a while ago we are on the same side. Lets do that and see if/how much it helps. Then depending on the results further adjustments can be made. There is no perfect solution and it will take time for the culture to change. But not starting because it is not perfect is terrible because things are trending to stay the same or get worse. Also, when people say "your Canadian why do you care?" I say it is because this is way to common, and who knows what is getting through. https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/man-arrested-after-20-guns-found-in-car-at-rainbow-bridge/ar-BBPFW42?li=AAggFp5 Lol k. I pointed out completely faulty logic on your part and even pointed out evidence after you attempted to ridicule me by saying "you watch too much TV". Then you try and say you didn't even talk about the database with me. Seriously? And things are not trending in the wrong direction. Factually speaking there's less gun violence now in the us than there was 10 years ago, and 20 years ago. You are running into a lot of opposition in this thread because of posts like this. You start with "Lol k" which is condescending and dismissive. We are here to have a respectful discussion. Your opinion that "things are not trending in the wrong direction" is pretty tough to swallow as well. As you and many others have made clear, there are a lot of statistics out there that could be used to argue for or against this point. What really can't be argued, however, is that we are hearing about an awful lot of events where a person with a gun is out to hurt others. And it keeps happening. To many people, this is an indication that progress is NOT being made, and it is entirely reasonable to discuss this in here without it devolving into a bitchy, condescending interpretation of statistics. You are actively preventing this from happening. I go "lol k" and act condescending when people refuse to admit that there is blatant dishonest use of highly inflated statistics. There is no reason for me to treat anyone with respect if they aren't going to have an honest debate and have shifting goal posts. Statistics are often open to interpretation. People interpreting them differently than you is not an acceptable reason to post disrespectfully.
Are you arguing that failure to mention that including information about how statistics are gathered in a news article to the general public and then passing those statistics off as "mass shootings" is honest? That's not a different interpretation that's fradulent reporting.
When I called out said fradulent reporting posters mocked me saying things like "you are lying" and "you watch too much TV". The best part is how they couldn't even respond because they knew they were wrong.
But I am supposed to be respectful. Ok.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
