Another day, another shooting in the US

[BareKnuckleRoo]

I'm trying to rationally

Yeah, I'm pretty sure anything like that's pretty much impossible for you.

[ncc]

tl;dr, cool story bro and all that

I don't think 72 people are worth [having lots of guns]

yeah, pfft, just 72 lives, fuck 'em, more assault rifles yeah baby

Straw Man. Ignoring.

That's really all that's needed to put your posts into perspective. Pretty much anyone would want to be foreign to that attitude.

Poisoning the Well is no way to go about winning at civil internet discourse.

Even still, the majority opinion makes it clear that any right to bear arms does not invalidate reasonable restrictions on the mentally ill having weapons. Frankly, you seem to think laws and consitutions are static and exist in some kind of vacuum.

I don't know where you got the idea that I approve of mentally unstable people or disapprove of gun control. I merely want to protect the rights of the 99% from a few malign individuals who, much like you, do not properly understand guns, how they work, how they affect the nation as a whole, or why people are driven to use them on one another, yet want to unceremoniously undermine the Bill of Rights, a document that is supposed to be a list of fundamental rights that belong to every person and the government has no right to refuse them, by passing legislature that directly infringes upon said rights in such a way as to effectively nullify them. Especially when evidence puts the efficacy of such laws in question to begin with.

As soon as I see a proposal that keeps guns out of the hands of criminals and psychopaths but not out of the hands of the millions upon millions of people that use them responsibly every single day without treating them like second-class citizens or rampaging killers-waiting-to-happen, I will gladly support it. I have yet to see anything even resembling that.

This wasn't just one dissenting opinion, the vote was 5/4 split. Could easily have gone the other way and officially declared it only applied to militias, as I imagine it would nowadays if the issue were brought forth again, what with crazy batshit looneys running around in AMERICUH, BOO YEAH RIFLES. But it's nice to see you act as if it's a black and white issue and anyone who comments on it is just a dirty foreigner, oooooo.

But they didn't. We aren't talking about would have, could have, should have. We are talking about real guns and real laws in real America. I welcome any civil internet discourse on the subject, but you aren't doing that. You are behaving like a petulant child because I told you no, and lashing out because I made one sideways claim implying that you don't actually know more about guns in America than I do, by virtue of the (very relevant) fact that you are an outsider; A claim that you are reinforcing very effectively.

patronizing, amoral fuckwad

Did I push your buttons a little too hard? I'm sorry, I assumed that anybody making claims in this thread would be able to back them up with something other than wild proselytizing and personal attacks.

[Ed Oscuro]

I'm not sure that anybody really believes we have "rights" as the Bill of Rights states, since we basically judge "rights" according to some kind of balance test. Not sure that's a totally terrible thing though. I've tried to justify rights as by themselves and don't really feel like I could hope to begin. They are certainly useful, though, as they should be respected as a bulwark against legislation to do what's expeditious at the cost of some good. But in almost every area of law, the government and even the courts create excuses (perhaps reasonable ones) to get past the conception of rights.

[Skykid]

Poisoning the Well is no way to go about winning at civil internet discourse.

There's no such thing.

Everything you say is irrelevant, because the fundamental belief that guns are useful as a tool for anything is inherently flawed, hence the obviously tainted nature of your lopsided arguments.

I could clarify why you've got your head in the clouds, but then I'd be regurgitating a mass of points and conversation that have run their course the length of this thread. So rather, I invite you to scroll back to page one and start reading: you'll find every point you made addressed several times over and comfortably buried by people who want to believe the world can be a better place.

[Ed Oscuro]

because the fundamental belief that guns are useful as a tool for anything is inherently flawed

I don't know how you could reasonably believe this, so here is a tool of Scarecrow using a skull with glowing eyes, which he is about to use to repair a flat tire:

[Skykid]

because the fundamental belief that guns are useful as a tool for anything is inherently flawed

Huh?

Well it's easier to open a bottle cap I suppose.

[Ed Oscuro]

But let us seriously consider this assertion.

So I would say that a firearm is a tool used mainly for killing animals of about deer size or smaller (or bigger depending on the weapon). What about this is problematic for you?

[Skykid]

But let us seriously consider this assertion.

So I would say that a firearm is a tool used mainly for killing animals of about deer size or smaller (or bigger depending on the weapon). What about this is problematic for you?

It's a exaggeration based on pacifism, therefore not discussion worthy since I agree it's an invalid assertion when taken in the literal.

Guns are good for killing things, I relent.

[drauch]

Prettttttttty sure if you look back in history, guns were invented to kill other humans. Hunting animals with them came quite a bit later.

[Ed Oscuro]

Pretty sure people are smaller than deer size. Maybe larger, depending on how many deer and extruded corn products you've been eating.

But yes, now that you mention it, there is a whole category of firearms dedicated to hunting and pest extermination (I wouldn't want to have to just try to poison wild hogs and going toe-to-toe with some of the beasts would be a very bad idea).

[ncc]

Poisoning the Well is no way to go about winning at civil internet discourse.

There's no such thing.

Everything you say is irrelevant, because the fundamental belief that guns are useful as a tool for anything is inherently flawed, hence the obviously tainted nature of your lopsided arguments.

Still relying on fallacies. Discrediting my argument by discrediting me or my character will not work. Stop trying. At this point there are easily over a dozen points of mine you could address, but are still trying to demonize me instead.

I could clarify why you've got your head in the clouds, but then I'd be regurgitating a mass of points and conversation that have run their course the length of this thread. So rather, I invite you to scroll back to page one and start reading: you'll find every point you made addressed several times over and comfortably buried by people who want to believe the world can be a better place.

I'm still not hearing a counter to any of the (many) points I've made. Only dismissal and an order to go find them myself. I'm not sure if this is because you merely lack the conviction to put forth the effort presenting your argument, or are unsure if you can refute anything I've said in certain terms, and so are trying to get me to prove myself wrong.

by people who want to believe the world can be a better place.

So by extension you believe the world can't be a better place as long as guns exist? That paints humanity in a pretty negative light. I believe that people have the power of self control. I believe that people have the ability to be responsible regardless of the presence of a potentially dangerous object in their lives. I believe we have the mental faculties to resist mindlessly slaughtering as many people as we can and that guns have no sway over us or our ability to reason. You believe in a humanity that is so enamored with violence that we have no control over our actions, and need to be contained in a safety-scissor world with nothing even remotely dangerous or risky for fear of someone hurting themselves or others. You don't want to be responsible for your own safety or the safety of those around you, instead encouraging that duty to be taken care of by society's parental figure because whether consciously or not, you believe that we are so innately violent and evil that we can't handle it.

See? It's not hard to imply that the other person is bad in some way. Kindly stop implying I am a monster because I don't subscribe to your school of thought. Please and thank you.

[Skykid]

I'm still not hearing a counter to any of the (many) points I've made. Only dismissal and an order to go find them myself. I'm not sure if this is because you merely lack the conviction to put forth the effort presenting your argument, or are unsure if you can refute anything I've said in certain terms, and so are trying to get me to prove myself wrong.

I've never lacked the conviction to back up an argument, but I do lack the effort to repeat one. Everything you've written has failed to convince me of anything, it's just a long, unlettered re-establishment of points already made and answered. Sorry if that's disappointing but I can't be bothered to go all over again, hence the recommendation to visit page one.

[BareKnuckleRoo]

Everything you've written has failed to convince me of anything, it's just a long, unlettered re-establishment of points already made and answered. Sorry if that's disappointing but I can't be bothered to go all over again, hence the recommendation to visit page one.

This, seriously. If you expect anyone to address your arguments seriously when it's mostly a rehash of points already addressed (the conspiracy nonsense, the issue that it's not about lawful gun owners but rather the plentifulness of guns in general that allows for crazies to easily steal them, as seen with Sandy Hook, that guy who sniped at firemen, etc), I think you're in the wrong thread. Especially after basically saying you don't give a shit if a few people get killed for the sake of your guns, then getting all condescending the moment someone calls you out for it. You should be asking "how can we avoid those deaths in the future?", not treating them as a necessary evil for fuck's sake!

We drive cars. Cars are helpful, they get us places. Yes, unfortunately accidents happen (someone has a heart attack while crashing, etc), including fatal ones, but the general attitude is always to try and make things as safe as possible. Nobody in the car industry is idiotic enough to go saying stuff like "oh, well it's okay if 100 people die per year, cars are still awesome", innocent deaths are never okay which is why we have constantly improving safety standards/features, which is why we try to license to make sure the people who want to drive can at least somewhat prove they're not incompetent, etc. I fail to see why mandatory gun safety training for firearm owners is a bad idea or why gun advocates constantly have this whole victim complex anyone suggests that there's way too many guns in the hands of way too many irresponsible people that are way too fucking easily obtained by imbeciles.

[Hagane]

Guns are merely tools. Their primary function isn't to kill. It's to project a small metal object from the barrel at high velocity.

You can't expect to be taken seriously after posting this. Guns are tools for killing, period.

[greg]

Anyone who attempts to bring the fictional media into this arguement has hereby revoked their right to an opinion.

I mean really, people are always whining about how new forms of entertainment is going to "ruin society". First it was the wicked printing press, then came along the horrible music, next comes the brainwashing television, and videogames arrive to finish the job. There is something seriously wrong with society when we blame forms of entertainment. It's easy to point the finger at things that are made up, but I can guarantee you that the only thing that has gone up, is news coverage of violent events. These things have always been happening, and they will continue to happen.

You didn't read what I wrote. I'm not putting the cart before the horse. I specifically said that entertainment is not ruining American society. Rather, our entertainment is a reflection of how American society has become ruined. What I blamed was the breakdown of American families, not its entertainment.

[ncc]

I'm still not hearing a counter to any of the (many) points I've made. Only dismissal and an order to go find them myself. I'm not sure if this is because you merely lack the conviction to put forth the effort presenting your argument, or are unsure if you can refute anything I've said in certain terms, and so are trying to get me to prove myself wrong.

I've never lacked the conviction to back up an argument, but I do lack the effort to repeat one. Everything you've written has failed to convince me of anything, it's just a long, unlettered re-establishment of points already made and answered. Sorry if that's disappointing but I can't be bothered to go all over again, hence the recommendation to visit page one.

Going through this thread and debunking every post made would be a nightmare for both myself and you, especially since it would mostly be re reiterating the point that a majority of the posts aren't backing any of the conjecture with facts, and many of the things said are blatantly false.

Especially after basically saying you don't give a shit if a few people get killed for the sake of your guns, then getting all condescending the moment someone calls you out for it.

Again with the character attacks. I guess if mentioning that you are making points completely irrelevant to the discussion is condescending then yeah, I was being uppity. Sorry I felt the urge to point out the fallacy in your argument's primary point. If you bothered to read my posts or any of the plentiful links I provided (something which I highly doubt you did), then you would know that I am in fact not a baby-annihilation hobbyist or whatever new trait you'll assign me in your next post, but merely a person who wants to protect the rights of those still living to protect themselves from evil.

You should be asking "how can we avoid those deaths in the future?", not treating them as a necessary evil for fuck's sake!

And I've made an argument that gun legislature as it's currently being introduced will do nothing to avoid deaths in the future. I seriously highly recommend you watch the video I linked where Joe Biden admits that nothing they are working on would have prevented Sandy Hook. I'm trying to be as blatant as possible. Vice president Biden, the man who heads up Obama's gun control task force, said it won't work. All of the legislature introduced since Sandy Hook is misguided and ineffective.

Since you care about the chilluns so much more than every other gun death in America last year, let's stop or reduce school shootings. A good first step to securing common places of incidents like Sandy Hook is to abolish gun free zones. Historically, mass shootings have occurred in gun-free zones, and the phenomenon can even be seen at a larger city-wide scale. Gun crime is highest in areas with strict control on the licensing of guns and which ones are allowed (LA, NYC, Chicago etc). This is because (like I've stated previously), most mass shooters are playing out a power fantasy and are aiming to make a name for themselves on the news (which they will because media coverage of these things is so completely overblown that it's actually exacerbating the situation). Often they have little practice or training with a gun and the only reason they are as effective as they are is because nobody else is around to stop them. When faced with stiff opposition, most shooters fold instantly. The fantasy comes crashing down around them and they either surrender or kill themselves.

Another option is to install armed security in places like schools. The NRA suggested it, and everyone threw a shitfit because armed police state hurr. Less than a month later Obama reversed his position by signing an executive order to 'provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers'. Those are security guards. Actually they are police officers instead of privately owned security, but that's a minor detail (armed police state hurr). See, we've already taken a mutually agreed step to fix the situation, and nobody lost their second amendment right. Is this what they call progress?

Yes, unfortunately accidents happen (someone has a heart attack while crashing, etc), including fatal ones,

I like how your example of a car accident is that someone had a heart attack at the wheel. It's something comfortably out of our direct control, and deflecting attention away from the fact that alcohol (which I already pointed out has even less purpose than guns) results in far more accidents and deaths. It's a better comparison because alcohol consumption is something we can control and directly affects our performance behind the wheel.

but the general attitude is always to try and make things as safe as possible.

This is so wrong. If this is the line in the sand reason that you think guns are illegal then I'm willing to make a concession. I will surrender my guns and the guns of every other American if alcohol, tobacco, knives, fast food and cars are made illegal. After all we make things as safe as possible, right?

Nobody in the car industry is idiotic enough to go saying stuff like "oh, well it's okay if 100 people die per year, cars are still awesome", innocent deaths are never okay which is why we have constantly improving safety standards/features, which is why we try to license to make sure the people who want to drive can at least somewhat prove they're not incompetent, etc.

We already did the cars shtick, but let's go over it again. You can own a car without a license, and you don't need to have one to drive it either, as long as you're on private property. Why do gun owners have to? Because they're dangerous? I think we can agree that cars are dangerous too. Most gun use is on private property (plinking out in a field, at an indoor range), and discharging one in a public place unless under extreme conditions (self defense) is illegal. None of the things you mentioned above for cars are an equivalent to banning guns. Cars don't get banned when they result in a death. The driver is fined or jailed if still alive and the government taxes us for a new don't drink and drive campaign.

I fail to see why mandatory gun safety training for firearm owners is a bad idea

At some point personal responsibility becomes a factor. Are you required to take a safety class when you use purchase a blender? Of course not. Are you required to take a safety course when you buy your first pocket knife? Also of course not. Are you taught from a young age to respect sharp edges and not touch them or wave them at people? Yeah, probably. There are classes on gun safety if you don't know how to work a gun safely and want to learn, but most gun owners already know their guns and how to operate them. Requiring a class that we would probably have to pay for will only insult our intelligence and treat us like criminals-to-be.

or why gun advocates constantly have this whole victim complex anyone suggests that there's way too many guns in the hands of way too many irresponsible people that are way too fucking easily obtained by imbeciles.

Persecution is the systematic mistreatment of an individual or group by another group. I would probably consider that applicable to the recent push to essentially eliminate an entire culture and hobby from the American public, especially while flying in the face of their established rights. I don't think you grasp the fundamental idea that gun ownership is a right, not a privilege. You are not forced to prove your ability to not be a drooling retard before you are given your 1st Amendment rights (as evidenced by this wonderful thing we call the internet).

[mesh control]

I fail to see why mandatory gun safety training for firearm owners is a bad idea

At some point personal responsibility becomes a factor. Are you required to take a safety class when you use purchase a blender? Of course not. Are you required to take a safety course when you buy your first pocket knife? Also of course not. Are you taught from a young age to respect sharp edges and not touch them or wave them at people? Yeah, probably. There are classes on gun safety if you don't know how to work a gun safely and want to learn, but most gun owners already know their guns and how to operate them. Requiring a class that we would probably have to pay for will only insult our intelligence and treat us like criminals-to-be.

[ncc]

gif

That's the kind of levity this thread needs more of.

[mesh control]

That's the kind of levity this thread needs more of.

I'm surprised you can see the screen with your head that far up your ass.

[Hagane]

Cars don't get banned when they result in a death. The driver is fined or jailed if still alive and the government taxes us for a new don't drink and drive campaign.

There's a tiny detail you might have overlooked: cars are made to transport people and guns are made to kill/hurt.

[O. Van Bruce]

[ncc]

Cars don't get banned when they result in a death. The driver is fined or jailed if still alive and the government taxes us for a new don't drink and drive campaign.

There's a tiny detail you might have overlooked: cars are made to transport people and guns are made to kill.

You're having trouble getting over that little speed bump aren't you? Guns are used for things other than killing. In fact not killing people is what they are used for most of the time. Reducing the sum of their existence to a matter of initial intention is the easiest way to put off actually responding to anything I've said in the last two pages.

I can make things look arbitrarily evil too. The essential function of a gun is to displace mass. The bullet is propelled out of the barrel by the primer. This manifests itself 100% of the time (according to the word of people in this thread and nothing else) as a mountain of dead children. A car's primary function is also to displace mass. The engine turns the wheels and propels the vehicle forward. This manifests itself 100% of the time (according to me, and nothing else) as a twisted wreck of metal with a tank full of exploding liquid wrapped around another twisted wreck of metal with a tank full of exploding liquid, with between 2 and 12 people squished into the empty spaces.


Anyway, If you're going to crusade against guns then I would probably start in your own country:

Code: Select all

Argentina Rate of Gun Homicide per 100,000 People: 3.0
US Rate of Gun Homicide per 100,000 People: 3.6

Argintine Rate of Civilian Firearm Possession per 100 Population: 10.2
US Rate of Civilian Firearm Possession per 100 Population: 88.8

[O. Van Bruce]

Cars don't get banned when they result in a death. The driver is fined or jailed if still alive and the government taxes us for a new don't drink and drive campaign.

There's a tiny detail you might have overlooked: cars are made to transport people and guns are made to kill.

You're having trouble getting over that little speed bump aren't you? Guns are used for things other than killing. In fact not killing people is what they are used for most of the time. Reducing the sum of their existence to a matter of initial intention is the easiest way to put off actually responding to anything I've said in the last two pages.

I can make things look arbitrarily evil too. The essential function of a gun is to displace mass. The bullet is propelled out of the barrel by the primer. This manifests itself 100% of the time (according to the word of people in this thread and nothing else) as a mountain of dead children. A car's primary function is also to displace mass. The engine turns the wheels and propels the vehicle forward. This manifests itself 100% of the time (according to me, and nothing else) as a twisted wreck of metal with a tank full of exploding liquid wrapped around another twisted wreck of metal with a tank full of exploding liquid, with between 2 and 12 people squished into the empty spaces.

[mesh control]

It's like he joined the board just to carry out this crusade.

It's touching, in some sort of way.

[BulletMagnet]

The essential function of a gun is to displace mass.

May I inquire, then, which particular type of mass does one primarily acquire a gun to "displace"? May I also inquire what other type of "tool" can be obtained as easily as a gun can be, which is even a fraction as effective at "mass displacement" as it is?

[mesh control]

The essential function of a gun is to displace mass.

May I inquire, then, which particular type of mass does one primarily acquire a gun to "displace"? May I also inquire what other type of "tool" can be obtained as easily as a gun can be, which is even a fraction as effective at "mass displacement" as it is?

haha
I missed that gem.

The essential function of a gun is to discharge projectiles, at substantial velocity.

[trap15]

[drauch]

I wish someone would buy a gun and kill this thread.

[mesh control]

hey

[Lord Satori]

I never thought I would be laughing at a post in this thread.