|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On August 05 2019 03:30 Lmui wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2019 02:32 Alejandrisha wrote:
does canada have a chicago? a camden? oakland? no you don't. Toronto: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TorontoPopulation (2016)[8][9][10][11] • Provincial capital city (single-tier) 2,731,571 (1st) • Density 4,334.4/km2 (11,226/sq mi) Chicago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ChicagoPopulation (2010)[6] • City 2,695,598 Density 11,898/sq mi (4,593.95/km2) Similar density, population, 8 hours apart by car. https://www.chicagotribune.com/data/ct-shooting-victims-map-charts-htmlstory.html1517 people shot as of July 27th. https://data.torontopolice.on.ca/pages/shootingsFrom here, shootings ytd: 230 instances, 349 victims. Maybe try something and get it down 75%? Absolutely retarded to see Republicans against any form of gun control because the demographic doing the most publicized shootings is also their key voting demographic.
we have huge areas, like the south side of chicago, that no one addresses because there is no money in fixing it. it is just a place where no one lives and people buy and sell drugs and hold down corners and shoot anyone who isn't them. there are places like this all over the united states in urban areas. generations of people that no one ever cared about nor bothered to even try to help. as far as i know there are no such ghettos in canada. there might be poor parts but not unpatrolled blocks and blocks and blocks of vacants of gangsters fighting for territory
|
On August 05 2019 06:12 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2019 03:24 Alejandrisha wrote:On August 05 2019 03:23 Starlightsun wrote:On August 05 2019 03:08 Alejandrisha wrote:
i don't want everyone to have an assault rifle. i really do not. but, like i've said before, there is a large segment of the population in the US that would rather die than give up their guns. to a lot of people, guns are akin to freedom and harkon back to the revolution and a lot of folks won't let go of that. There is not a "large segment of the population" that would rather die than not own guns. They would be upset and then move on with their lives. i wish if it were that easy would i even be talking here? no. because it't not. that. easy. It is not easy, but it is very simple. It is just that for some reason American's value the "right to guns" more than the right to not be a victim of a shooting.
even if you suddenly got rid of americans' love for guns, you still have 200 million+ (maybe more?) guns already on the street and in the hands of civilians and they aren't going to magically disappear and no one is going to turn them in out of good faith. i agree it is very simple. i don't want there to be so many guns, trust me. it's just a huge part of the culture in some parts, especially the south and bible belt. there seems to be a correlation between hardcore Christianity/waiting for the apocalypse and guns. if you ever visit, stay away from the middle of the country O)O
|
I remember cleraly when we had the one good discussion about abortion in the us politics thread It came down a lot to the arguments about the language was the real arguments people were having.
If we can't have a reasonable understanding of the basic words to use when discussing gun control we can't discuss gun control.
TLDR: Assult weapons are fake news.
|
On August 05 2019 03:30 Lmui wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2019 02:32 Alejandrisha wrote:
does canada have a chicago? a camden? oakland? no you don't. Toronto: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TorontoPopulation (2016)[8][9][10][11] • Provincial capital city (single-tier) 2,731,571 (1st) • Density 4,334.4/km2 (11,226/sq mi) Chicago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ChicagoPopulation (2010)[6] • City 2,695,598 Density 11,898/sq mi (4,593.95/km2) Similar density, population, 8 hours apart by car. https://www.chicagotribune.com/data/ct-shooting-victims-map-charts-htmlstory.html1517 people shot as of July 27th. https://data.torontopolice.on.ca/pages/shootingsFrom here, shootings ytd: 230 instances, 349 victims. Maybe try something and get it down 75%? Absolutely retarded to see Republicans against any form of gun control because the demographic doing the most publicized shootings is also their key voting demographic.
Chicago and Toronto are not equivalent. Their demographics are drastically different and Toronto is a lot more prosperous. The closest US comparison to Toronto is probably Seattle or San Francisco. Very similar demographics, economy and living standards. Seems to have pretty similar culture and political views as well, atleast from what I've heard. I tried to look up some numbers, and in 2017, Chicago had a murder rate per capita at 5.3 times of Seattle. You could probably find better data if you looked a bit more, but I doubt that the numbers have changed that much since then, and I trust the numbers to be pretty accurate, by comparing them to the numbers you showed for Toronto. Adding the numbers you cited, Toronto actually have a higher murder rate than Seattle (per capita), but they are pretty close.
|
Northern Ireland26078 Posts
On August 05 2019 07:59 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2019 07:34 Wombat_NI wrote:On August 05 2019 04:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:On August 05 2019 04:14 Slydie wrote:On August 05 2019 04:04 Jan1997 wrote:
This whole mass shootings thing reminds me more and more of the circle of life repeating itself over and over. You can't get something without losing something. You arm your people and make guns legal you will benefit a lot of good people, but equally you benefit the bad people by throwing deadly fireams into circulation, both legally & illegaly.
It's a shame people are victims to violence, but this will never fully stop. The big question is how much of a "benefit" it really is to make it easy for anyone to buy an assault rifle and turn it into an automatic legally. I guess it depends on what kind of culture you have grown up in, but I see guns as poison, I just don't want them near me as they cause way more harm than they hinder, the accidents alone is enough for me. A friend of mine can never run again because he as a teenager took a hunting shotgun down from the wall, fell and shot a huge hole in his leg. He was alone in the house and barely got to the phone to call emergency to save his life. GET THEM OUT OF MY SIGHT! Guns are tools to very efficiently transform people into tartare steaks. That’s literally their only function. The idea that every civilian should have the right to have a machine to tartarize people just completely eludes me. And don’t bring me the home defense thing. The sacred right to own a handgun at home is the same that will give your burglar a fucking shotgun and allow him to transform you into a strainer before you have time to play captain America. They are a great physical equaliser though. I don’t fancy the chances of an elderly person or an average woman vs your average young man in any kind of home invasion scenario. I’m not making a pro gun argument in particular here, I think people underestimate quite how insurmountable that physical advantage us young males have over other people. We get a lot (or at least they’re publicised a lot) of burglaries and pretty brutal beatings with the occasional murder of the rural elderly over here, and there’s not much they can do if that scenario happens. That all rings true enough, but there’s still a lot to be said for how difficult it is to act under pressure, plus the task of operating a firearm competently, when it comes to postulating hypotheticals where homeowner guns are present. Guns as equalizers isn’t as widely applicable a concept in the self-defense context as it seems, imo.
When I’m old I feel my background playing Quake and UT will be a great leveller against people raised on less intensive FPS.
No I mean point absolutely taken, as with many arguments around the topic the best or worst case hypothetical doesn’t really reflect the average effect across a whole nation state.
I don’t personally feel guns matter all that much outside of evocative mass shootings, the society that surrounds them is what facilitates (or doesn’t) violence, be it abject poverty and other forms of inequity, a punitive and ineffective prison system, plus the wider culture itself.
A sizeable proportion of the population having either no faith in law enforcement, or feeling they’re an active bad actor towards that segment and people take matters in-house.
|
Northern Ireland26078 Posts
On August 05 2019 09:43 Sermokala wrote:
I remember cleraly when we had the one good discussion about abortion in the us politics thread It came down a lot to the arguments about the language was the real arguments people were having.
If we can't have a reasonable understanding of the basic words to use when discussing gun control we can't discuss gun control.
TLDR: Assult weapons are fake news.
What about assault weapons though?
|
On August 05 2019 09:52 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2019 07:59 farvacola wrote:On August 05 2019 07:34 Wombat_NI wrote:On August 05 2019 04:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:On August 05 2019 04:14 Slydie wrote:On August 05 2019 04:04 Jan1997 wrote:
This whole mass shootings thing reminds me more and more of the circle of life repeating itself over and over. You can't get something without losing something. You arm your people and make guns legal you will benefit a lot of good people, but equally you benefit the bad people by throwing deadly fireams into circulation, both legally & illegaly.
It's a shame people are victims to violence, but this will never fully stop. The big question is how much of a "benefit" it really is to make it easy for anyone to buy an assault rifle and turn it into an automatic legally. I guess it depends on what kind of culture you have grown up in, but I see guns as poison, I just don't want them near me as they cause way more harm than they hinder, the accidents alone is enough for me. A friend of mine can never run again because he as a teenager took a hunting shotgun down from the wall, fell and shot a huge hole in his leg. He was alone in the house and barely got to the phone to call emergency to save his life. GET THEM OUT OF MY SIGHT! Guns are tools to very efficiently transform people into tartare steaks. That’s literally their only function. The idea that every civilian should have the right to have a machine to tartarize people just completely eludes me. And don’t bring me the home defense thing. The sacred right to own a handgun at home is the same that will give your burglar a fucking shotgun and allow him to transform you into a strainer before you have time to play captain America. They are a great physical equaliser though. I don’t fancy the chances of an elderly person or an average woman vs your average young man in any kind of home invasion scenario. I’m not making a pro gun argument in particular here, I think people underestimate quite how insurmountable that physical advantage us young males have over other people. We get a lot (or at least they’re publicised a lot) of burglaries and pretty brutal beatings with the occasional murder of the rural elderly over here, and there’s not much they can do if that scenario happens. That all rings true enough, but there’s still a lot to be said for how difficult it is to act under pressure, plus the task of operating a firearm competently, when it comes to postulating hypotheticals where homeowner guns are present. Guns as equalizers isn’t as widely applicable a concept in the self-defense context as it seems, imo. When I’m old I feel my background playing Quake and UT will be a great leveller against people raised on less intensive FPS. No I mean point absolutely taken, as with many arguments around the topic the best or worst case hypothetical doesn’t really reflect the average effect across a whole nation state. I don’t personally feel guns matter all that much outside of evocative mass shootings, the society that surrounds them is what facilitates (or doesn’t) violence, be it abject poverty and other forms of inequity, a punitive and ineffective prison system, plus the wider culture itself. A sizeable proportion of the population having either no faith in law enforcement, or feeling they’re an active bad actor towards that segment and people take matters in-house.
not even just mass shootings. just small shootings that happen every goddam day. hand guns are the bigger culprit. easy to hide but can still take a life in an instant. sad.
|
On August 05 2019 09:54 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2019 09:43 Sermokala wrote:
I remember cleraly when we had the one good discussion about abortion in the us politics thread It came down a lot to the arguments about the language was the real arguments people were having.
If we can't have a reasonable understanding of the basic words to use when discussing gun control we can't discuss gun control.
TLDR: Assult weapons are fake news. What about assault weapons though?
assault weapons have no purpose other than exterminating mass amounts of people in the smallest amount of time possible. makes no sense why these are available to the layman but the gun lobby is stronk and there are enough loonies in the us that believe the need to protect themselves vs. the gubment. and there are so many in civilian hands for no reason. it's true that some one with a similar motive could kill with a smaller gun but the usage of assault weapons is really fucked up. the cops are outgunned until swat arrives.
like why can't people just have shot guns for home protection and be done with it.
|
|
|
Northern Ireland26078 Posts
On August 05 2019 09:57 Alejandrisha wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2019 09:54 Wombat_NI wrote:On August 05 2019 09:43 Sermokala wrote:
I remember cleraly when we had the one good discussion about abortion in the us politics thread It came down a lot to the arguments about the language was the real arguments people were having.
If we can't have a reasonable understanding of the basic words to use when discussing gun control we can't discuss gun control.
TLDR: Assult weapons are fake news. What about assault weapons though? assault weapons have no purpose other than exterminating mass amounts of people in the smallest amount of time possible. makes no sense why these are available to the layman but the gun lobby is stronk and there are enough loonies in the us that believe the need to protect themselves vs. the gubment. and there are so many in civilian hands for no reason. it's true that some one with a similar motive could kill with a smaller gun but the usage of assault weapons is really fucked up. the cops are outgunned until swat arrives. like why can't people just have shot guns for home protection and be done with it.
Can’t I facetiously point out a typo in peace dagnabbit?
It’s arbitrary as hell but absolutely I think it’s sensible to restrict arms to what can reasonably be sufficient for actual defence. Shotguns, trebuchets etc. If a weapon is overkill for that purpose and, realistically has more utility in a rampage of some kind then yeah, it’s a reasonable line to draw (though of course too arbitrary to fly in the current climate)
I don’t really understand the anti-government rationale at all as, with some exceptions it tends to come from support our troops patriot types
|
On August 05 2019 10:01 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2019 09:08 Alejandrisha wrote:On August 05 2019 06:12 JimmiC wrote:On August 05 2019 03:24 Alejandrisha wrote:On August 05 2019 03:23 Starlightsun wrote:On August 05 2019 03:08 Alejandrisha wrote:
i don't want everyone to have an assault rifle. i really do not. but, like i've said before, there is a large segment of the population in the US that would rather die than give up their guns. to a lot of people, guns are akin to freedom and harkon back to the revolution and a lot of folks won't let go of that. There is not a "large segment of the population" that would rather die than not own guns. They would be upset and then move on with their lives. i wish if it were that easy would i even be talking here? no. because it't not. that. easy. It is not easy, but it is very simple. It is just that for some reason American's value the "right to guns" more than the right to not be a victim of a shooting. even if you suddenly got rid of americans' love for guns, you still have 200 million+ (maybe more?) guns already on the street and in the hands of civilians and they aren't going to magically disappear and no one is going to turn them in out of good faith. i agree it is very simple. i don't want there to be so many guns, trust me. it's just a huge part of the culture in some parts, especially the south and bible belt. there seems to be a correlation between hardcore Christianity/waiting for the apocalypse and guns. if you ever visit, stay away from the middle of the country O)O Yes it would take a long time, and lots would actually turn them in, even more if you had a buy back program (which is super easy to justify in ROI, like one emergency shooting that requires surgery would save a huge amount of guns). And yes the culture is the problem, until Americans finally get fed up with so many people senselessly dying and change how important they thinks guns are. It was gun makers genius marketing plan to tie gun ownership to "being American". You would also solve/drastically reduce police shooting's of people. Right now they are scared that everyone might have a gun. That makes even routine traffic stops scary as hell. Here when you get pulled over for speeding you don't have a cop yelling to see your hands, or approaching at different angles and crap, they just stroll up to the window and ask for you insurance and registration.
very true what you say about cops. at one point, the nra was trying to pass a law that would allow people with concealed carry permits to travel into other states that did not have legal concealed carry as long as they had a license in their home state. thankfully that was shot down. could you imagine how worse that would have made things? it is absolutely a culture problem that created an abundance of weapons. i don't know if buyback would work. who wants to give up the feeling of 'power?' not a bible thumping 'murican. i really don't know how to get rid of the guns. the R solution is, well counter them WITH BIGGER GUNS. this is a country that is fucked so many ways
|
On August 05 2019 10:05 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2019 09:57 Alejandrisha wrote:On August 05 2019 09:54 Wombat_NI wrote:On August 05 2019 09:43 Sermokala wrote:
I remember cleraly when we had the one good discussion about abortion in the us politics thread It came down a lot to the arguments about the language was the real arguments people were having.
If we can't have a reasonable understanding of the basic words to use when discussing gun control we can't discuss gun control.
TLDR: Assult weapons are fake news. What about assault weapons though? assault weapons have no purpose other than exterminating mass amounts of people in the smallest amount of time possible. makes no sense why these are available to the layman but the gun lobby is stronk and there are enough loonies in the us that believe the need to protect themselves vs. the gubment. and there are so many in civilian hands for no reason. it's true that some one with a similar motive could kill with a smaller gun but the usage of assault weapons is really fucked up. the cops are outgunned until swat arrives. like why can't people just have shot guns for home protection and be done with it. Can’t I facetiously point out a typo in peace dagnabbit? It’s arbitrary as hell but absolutely I think it’s sensible to restrict arms to what can reasonably be sufficient for actual defence. Shotguns, trebuchets etc. If a weapon is overkill for that purpose and, realistically has more utility in a rampage of some kind then yeah, it’s a reasonable line to draw (though of course too arbitrary to fly in the current climate) I don’t really understand the anti-government rationale at all as, with some exceptions it tends to come from support our troops patriot types
looool this isn't the first time of done this to you. woops. assult weapons will get you with the booty clap
|
On August 05 2019 09:57 Alejandrisha wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2019 09:54 Wombat_NI wrote:On August 05 2019 09:43 Sermokala wrote:
I remember cleraly when we had the one good discussion about abortion in the us politics thread It came down a lot to the arguments about the language was the real arguments people were having.
If we can't have a reasonable understanding of the basic words to use when discussing gun control we can't discuss gun control.
TLDR: Assult weapons are fake news. What about assault weapons though? assault weapons have no purpose other than exterminating mass amounts of people in the smallest amount of time possible. makes no sense why these are available to the layman but the gun lobby is stronk and there are enough loonies in the us that believe the need to protect themselves vs. the gubment. and there are so many in civilian hands for no reason. it's true that some one with a similar motive could kill with a smaller gun but the usage of assault weapons is really fucked up. the cops are outgunned until swat arrives. like why can't people just have shot guns for home protection and be done with it.
There is no such thing as an assault weapon. It has no specific definition and only serves to confuse and obfuscate the conversation. The gun lobby didn't invent the term. I'll leave you to make the obvious arguments.
|
|
|
|
|
On August 05 2019 10:36 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2019 09:57 Alejandrisha wrote:On August 05 2019 09:54 Wombat_NI wrote:On August 05 2019 09:43 Sermokala wrote:
I remember cleraly when we had the one good discussion about abortion in the us politics thread It came down a lot to the arguments about the language was the real arguments people were having.
If we can't have a reasonable understanding of the basic words to use when discussing gun control we can't discuss gun control.
TLDR: Assult weapons are fake news. What about assault weapons though? assault weapons have no purpose other than exterminating mass amounts of people in the smallest amount of time possible. makes no sense why these are available to the layman but the gun lobby is stronk and there are enough loonies in the us that believe the need to protect themselves vs. the gubment. and there are so many in civilian hands for no reason. it's true that some one with a similar motive could kill with a smaller gun but the usage of assault weapons is really fucked up. the cops are outgunned until swat arrives. like why can't people just have shot guns for home protection and be done with it. There is no such thing as an assault weapon. It has no specific definition and only serves to confuse and obfuscate the conversation. The gun lobby didn't invent the term. I'll leave you to make the obvious arguments.
ok how about i replace 'assault weapons' with ar-15s and other automatic rifles? why the need to nitpick this?
|
On August 05 2019 10:41 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2019 10:06 Alejandrisha wrote:On August 05 2019 10:01 JimmiC wrote:On August 05 2019 09:08 Alejandrisha wrote:On August 05 2019 06:12 JimmiC wrote:On August 05 2019 03:24 Alejandrisha wrote:On August 05 2019 03:23 Starlightsun wrote:On August 05 2019 03:08 Alejandrisha wrote:
i don't want everyone to have an assault rifle. i really do not. but, like i've said before, there is a large segment of the population in the US that would rather die than give up their guns. to a lot of people, guns are akin to freedom and harkon back to the revolution and a lot of folks won't let go of that. There is not a "large segment of the population" that would rather die than not own guns. They would be upset and then move on with their lives. i wish if it were that easy would i even be talking here? no. because it't not. that. easy. It is not easy, but it is very simple. It is just that for some reason American's value the "right to guns" more than the right to not be a victim of a shooting. even if you suddenly got rid of americans' love for guns, you still have 200 million+ (maybe more?) guns already on the street and in the hands of civilians and they aren't going to magically disappear and no one is going to turn them in out of good faith. i agree it is very simple. i don't want there to be so many guns, trust me. it's just a huge part of the culture in some parts, especially the south and bible belt. there seems to be a correlation between hardcore Christianity/waiting for the apocalypse and guns. if you ever visit, stay away from the middle of the country O)O Yes it would take a long time, and lots would actually turn them in, even more if you had a buy back program (which is super easy to justify in ROI, like one emergency shooting that requires surgery would save a huge amount of guns). And yes the culture is the problem, until Americans finally get fed up with so many people senselessly dying and change how important they thinks guns are. It was gun makers genius marketing plan to tie gun ownership to "being American". You would also solve/drastically reduce police shooting's of people. Right now they are scared that everyone might have a gun. That makes even routine traffic stops scary as hell. Here when you get pulled over for speeding you don't have a cop yelling to see your hands, or approaching at different angles and crap, they just stroll up to the window and ask for you insurance and registration. very true what you say about cops. at one point, the nra was trying to pass a law that would allow people with concealed carry permits to travel into other states that did not have legal concealed carry as long as they had a license in their home state. thankfully that was shot down. could you imagine how worse that would have made things? it is absolutely a culture problem that created an abundance of weapons. i don't know if buyback would work. who wants to give up the feeling of 'power?' not a bible thumping 'murican. i really don't know how to get rid of the guns. the R solution is, well counter them WITH BIGGER GUNS. this is a country that is fucked so many ways Agreed, it is a long way to go. However even long trips can be made if you get started. The US has so much money and when they pull together for something the results could be amazing. If people really got behind it, it would be amazing what could ve accomplished. Sadly im not sure what kind of event it would take if sandy hook and vegas didnt move the needle. Scary to think what would. And then you have all the miss information campaigns so crazies think sandy hook was a fake, same type that thought 9/11 was a hoax. Massive problem, simple solution, and absolute shit ton of work and you would need a very motivated populace to get it done. Hopefully millennial s will be sick and tired of this shit happening and will be the ones that finally decide enough is enough.
as much as i hope so, i doubt it. people generally inherit their views from their parents. it will take a few generations since the 90's uptick of mass shootings for people to get really sick of guns. usa is gun crazy.. more than any other country afaik. and when it gets hot outside we just want to shoot each other.
|
On August 05 2019 10:43 Alejandrisha wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2019 10:36 Sermokala wrote:On August 05 2019 09:57 Alejandrisha wrote:On August 05 2019 09:54 Wombat_NI wrote:On August 05 2019 09:43 Sermokala wrote:
I remember cleraly when we had the one good discussion about abortion in the us politics thread It came down a lot to the arguments about the language was the real arguments people were having.
If we can't have a reasonable understanding of the basic words to use when discussing gun control we can't discuss gun control.
TLDR: Assult weapons are fake news. What about assault weapons though? assault weapons have no purpose other than exterminating mass amounts of people in the smallest amount of time possible. makes no sense why these are available to the layman but the gun lobby is stronk and there are enough loonies in the us that believe the need to protect themselves vs. the gubment. and there are so many in civilian hands for no reason. it's true that some one with a similar motive could kill with a smaller gun but the usage of assault weapons is really fucked up. the cops are outgunned until swat arrives. like why can't people just have shot guns for home protection and be done with it. There is no such thing as an assault weapon. It has no specific definition and only serves to confuse and obfuscate the conversation. The gun lobby didn't invent the term. I'll leave you to make the obvious arguments. ok how about i replace 'assault weapons' with ar-15s and other automatic rifles? why the need to nitpick this?
Because if the discussion is about the merits of the terminology in an argument, the discussion is not about the merit of the actual argument.
|
On August 05 2019 10:43 Alejandrisha wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2019 10:36 Sermokala wrote:On August 05 2019 09:57 Alejandrisha wrote:On August 05 2019 09:54 Wombat_NI wrote:On August 05 2019 09:43 Sermokala wrote:
I remember cleraly when we had the one good discussion about abortion in the us politics thread It came down a lot to the arguments about the language was the real arguments people were having.
If we can't have a reasonable understanding of the basic words to use when discussing gun control we can't discuss gun control.
TLDR: Assult weapons are fake news. What about assault weapons though? assault weapons have no purpose other than exterminating mass amounts of people in the smallest amount of time possible. makes no sense why these are available to the layman but the gun lobby is stronk and there are enough loonies in the us that believe the need to protect themselves vs. the gubment. and there are so many in civilian hands for no reason. it's true that some one with a similar motive could kill with a smaller gun but the usage of assault weapons is really fucked up. the cops are outgunned until swat arrives. like why can't people just have shot guns for home protection and be done with it. There is no such thing as an assault weapon. It has no specific definition and only serves to confuse and obfuscate the conversation. The gun lobby didn't invent the term. I'll leave you to make the obvious arguments. ok how about i replace 'assault weapons' with ar-15s and other automatic rifles? why the need to nitpick this? That person's gonna nitpick that an AR-15 isn't automatic, which is true though they can be converted to be essentially automatic.
But that's entirely beside the point. What reason is there for someone to own a rifle like an AR-15? They're too powerful for hunting. They're impractical for self-defense compared to something like a pistol (also, if Big Evil Government is coming for you chances are your AR-15 isn't gonna save you against well-trained military people with better equipment). They seem to purely exist for insecure people to buy to show off so they can claim they're tough. Same deal with extended magazines and all sorts of other accessories. It's purely for show and seemingly for people to use while killing other people. There's no reason for that type of stuff to be available.
We have guns here in Canada. A lot of them. But with strict regulation on what guns can be bought and how you can buy them, it's much more manageable. You can get guns like pistols here but you have to have training and meet requirements like having a gun safe to lock the pistol in along with a background check. This all seems reasonable, and I don't see why the US doesn't have a similar system, but I guess that would get in the way of gun manufactures making money.
|
On August 05 2019 11:14 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2019 10:43 Alejandrisha wrote:On August 05 2019 10:36 Sermokala wrote:On August 05 2019 09:57 Alejandrisha wrote:On August 05 2019 09:54 Wombat_NI wrote:On August 05 2019 09:43 Sermokala wrote:
I remember cleraly when we had the one good discussion about abortion in the us politics thread It came down a lot to the arguments about the language was the real arguments people were having.
If we can't have a reasonable understanding of the basic words to use when discussing gun control we can't discuss gun control.
TLDR: Assult weapons are fake news. What about assault weapons though? assault weapons have no purpose other than exterminating mass amounts of people in the smallest amount of time possible. makes no sense why these are available to the layman but the gun lobby is stronk and there are enough loonies in the us that believe the need to protect themselves vs. the gubment. and there are so many in civilian hands for no reason. it's true that some one with a similar motive could kill with a smaller gun but the usage of assault weapons is really fucked up. the cops are outgunned until swat arrives. like why can't people just have shot guns for home protection and be done with it. There is no such thing as an assault weapon. It has no specific definition and only serves to confuse and obfuscate the conversation. The gun lobby didn't invent the term. I'll leave you to make the obvious arguments. ok how about i replace 'assault weapons' with ar-15s and other automatic rifles? why the need to nitpick this? Because if the discussion is about the merits of the terminology in an argument, the discussion is not about the merit of the actual argument.
Because control over the terminology means control of the argument. You can avoid actually having to advocate for gun control and just score points when you advocate for vague goals that don't actually mean anything. What the gun control crowd is trying to do is to link the image of the right trying to let everyone have automatic weapons while they fail at trying to regulate semi automatic weapons.
Banning assault weapons means nothing because there is no such thing as assault weapons to ban. If the argument was about modern platforms like the ar-15 then something might actually get done. Instead, the left can spin its wheels and score points at the same time, keeping a status quo that actually benefits them politically. I can give the aussies crap about making up the term "Military-style semi-automatic" but they at least attached a real definition to the term, thus something actually got done.
IF I can get you to say the word "unborn fetus" I can make the moderates think that they are little different to babies and then suddenly abortion is baby killing. If you get me to say "embryo" or just "fetus" that dehumanizes the conversation and it suddenly means that only the carrying woman is involved.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
