# FIRST DAY OF CONGRESS: DEMS TO INTRODUCE NEW ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN



## Bender (Dec 16, 2012)

> WASHINGTON -- In the wake of Friday's mass killing at an elementary school in Connecticut, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said Sunday that she plans to introduce an assault weapons ban bill on the first day of the new Congress.
> 
> "I'm going to introduce in the Senate, and the same bill will be introduced in the House -- a bill to ban assault weapons," Feinstein said on NBC's "Meet the Press."
> 
> ...





Thank fucking goodness this bill has been introduced.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Dec 16, 2012)

At least someone tries, even though it will probably fail. On the bright side, Bill Bennett seems to approve, maybe there is hope... nah who am I kidding? 



> "Who needs these military-style assault weapons? Who needs an ammunition feeding device capable of holding 100 rounds?" Feinstein wrote on her campaign website. "These weapons are not for hunting deer -- they’re for hunting people."



Yes


----------



## Luna (Dec 16, 2012)

This bill has my support.


----------



## Shiroyasha (Dec 16, 2012)

Well fucking finally, at least something is being done about it.

Now to wait for the rednecks and hillbillies to start raging.


----------



## Bender (Dec 16, 2012)

l Shiroyasha l said:


> Well fucking finally, at least something is being done about it.
> 
> Now to wait for the rednecks and hillbillies to start raging.


----------



## Roman (Dec 16, 2012)

I'm glad someone is being very quick about this. I just hope Republicans will agree to this. If they don't, the only thing they'll tell me is that the constitutional right to carry tools of murder trumps people's lives.


----------



## Luna (Dec 16, 2012)

l Shiroyasha l said:


> Now to wait for the rednecks and hillbillies to start raging.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Dec 16, 2012)

A bill can be introduced, but it will probably fail like all the others. The GOP still hold the house after all. They would not budge.

Don't think a tragedy like this will stop them from being puppets of the NRA. Just like a lot of them dems are too cowardly to openly attack the NRA themselves.


----------



## SubtleObscurantist (Dec 16, 2012)

I wished more mass shooters would use 100 round magazines. So many lives would be saved by epidemic and certain jamming.


----------



## Huntress (Dec 16, 2012)

SubtleObscurantist said:


> I wished more mass shooters would use 100 round magazines. So many lives would be saved by epidemic and certain jamming.



they would know about the jamming and stuff, hence why they dont use them. these killers are trained to use the most lethal weapons they can access.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Dec 16, 2012)

No, that bitch better introduce some plans to fix the fiscal cliff problem. Congress needs to do their fucking job before the whole country is ruined and they seem to be preoccupied with shit they could do later. 



PaperAngel said:


> they would know about the jamming and stuff, hence why they dont use them. these killers are trained to use the most lethal weapons they can access.


No they're not, they just don't use them because they're not as common because they jam. 

They're not trained most of the time, any trained person could cause way more havoc than these people do.


----------



## Bender (Dec 16, 2012)

Inuhanyou said:


> A bill can be introduced, but it will probably fail like all the others. The GOP still hold the house after all. They would not budge.
> 
> Don't think a tragedy like this will stop them from being puppets of the NRA. Just like a lot of them dems are too cowardly to openly attack the NRA themselves.



I'm a Dem and I won't think twice about attacking the ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".). Shit I'll start a twitter account right now dedicated to insulting them. What should the title be?


----------



## Axl Low (Dec 16, 2012)

betcha if the economy wasnt so bad alot less shootings would happen :/
regardless this bill will more than likely not pass.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Dec 16, 2012)

Axl Low said:


> betcha if the economy wasnt so bad alot less shootings would happen :/
> regardless this bill will more than likely not pass.


Not just the economy, just life in the US in general. The country is in horrible shape and a good portion of the government doesn't care that it is.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Dec 16, 2012)

Bender said:


> I'm a Dem and I won't think twice about attacking the ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".). Shit I'll start a twitter account right now dedicated to insulting them. What should the title be?



I'm referring to the politicians.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Dec 16, 2012)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> No, that bitch better introduce some plans to fix the fiscal cliff problem.



No wonder you don't have a rep bar.   Jesus christ your as bad as Immortal in this instance.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Dec 16, 2012)

Inuhanyou said:


> No wonder you don't have a rep bar.   Jesus christ your as bad as Immortal in this instance.



That issue is more serious, it could cause the country damage for years. And I don't have a rep bar because I'm not a fucking ass kisser. 

I speak my mind and don't give two shits what the rest of you think.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Dec 16, 2012)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> That issue is more serious, it could cause the country damage for years. And I don't have a rep bar because I'm not a fucking ass kisser.
> 
> I speak my mind and don't give two shits what the rest of you think.



No, i could tell you why you don't have one, and what i really think of your attitude in regards to a serious situation like this, but i'd probably get in trouble so i won't. Your treading on thin ice in regards to ignorance though, really really thin ice.

28 people were just murdered and instead of talking about that, in a thread dedicated to that, your attempting to deflect to a totally unrelated issue because goodness knows that's all that's important.

Think with your brain for a second.


----------



## Huntress (Dec 16, 2012)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> No, that bitch better introduce some plans to fix the fiscal cliff problem. Congress needs to do their fucking job before the whole country is ruined and they seem to be preoccupied with shit they could do later.
> 
> 
> No they're not, they just don't use them because they're not as common because they jam.
> ...



mind control dude. obviously they not trained like a hitman or soldier, but they are part of the millions of sleepers around waiting to be activated.


----------



## Sunuvmann (Dec 16, 2012)

About fucking time.


----------



## Megaharrison (Dec 16, 2012)

I agree with a total gun ban (see my multiple posts on this Newtown incident) and think an assault weapons ban doesn't go far enough. That being said, the guy actually didn't use any assault weapons in this massacre as he left the Bushmaster .223 in the car.


----------



## Bender (Dec 16, 2012)

Megaharrison said:


> I agree with a total gun ban (see my multiple posts on this Newtown incident) and think an assault weapons ban doesn't go far enough. That being said, the guy actually didn't use any assault weapons in this massacre as he left the Bushmaster .223 in the car.



Seriously? Huh, I misread my research.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Dec 16, 2012)

Megaharrison said:


> I agree with a total gun ban (see my multiple posts on this Newtown incident) and think an assault weapons ban doesn't go far enough. That being said, the guy actually didn't use any assault weapons in this massacre as he left the Bushmaster .223 in the car.










> The victims, including 12 girls and eight boys, were all apparently killed by a .223 Bushmaster semi-automatic rifle, and each of the victims was hit by more than one bullet.* The assault weapon can fire as many as six bullets per second, according to the New York Daily News, and some of the victims were shot as many as 11 times, chief medical examiner Dr. H. Wayne Carver said. That key detail also contradicts earlier reports that claimed the rifle had been left in the car and Lanza had used semi-automatic pistols to carry out the massacre. *In addition to the rifle, Lanza was also carrying at least two pistols, a Glock and a Sig Sauer, reports the Washington Post. The bullets Lanza used were “designed in such a fashion the energy is deposited in the tissue so the bullet stays in,” Carver said. The Hartford Courant publishes a detailed account of how Lanza carried out the massacre, noting that 14 of the murdered children were all in one classroom.


----------



## Fruits Basket Fan (Dec 16, 2012)

I do not have faith that it will go through.....because of the House.


----------



## Bender (Dec 16, 2012)

Only one shot guns should be allowed.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Dec 16, 2012)

You'd need to consistently shoot someone with godlike aim and then reload to hit multiple children 11 times each with a handgun.


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Dec 16, 2012)

As sad as it sounds, I don't think this will actually curb any psychopaths at all.

Jack up the price of ammunition instead, Chris Rock style.


----------



## Bender (Dec 16, 2012)

Inuhanyou said:


> You'd need to consistently shoot someone with godlike aim and then reload to hit multiple children 11 times each with a handgun.



Which is why I suggest a handgun only being allowed. Strong possibility of a person being able to apprehend the shooter while he reloads.


----------



## Fruits Basket Fan (Dec 16, 2012)

At the very least, I wish the US gun laws would be similar to Canada's gun laws.


A total ban on guns like most European countries will never pass through here, sadly.


----------



## Megaharrison (Dec 16, 2012)

I see, everything with story seems to be "contradictory reports" so not surprising.

Firing 6 bullets per second is a fun way to fuck up your barrel though


----------



## Inuhanyou (Dec 16, 2012)

Fruits Basket Fan said:


> At the very least, I wish the US gun laws would be similar to Canada's gun laws.
> 
> 
> A total ban on guns like most European countries will never pass through here, sadly.



Canadian gun laws are basically my goal for the US eventually, or my intended goal anyway. It doesn't infringe on anybody's rights, but it provides enough hoops to jump around so that only responsible people will own a gun regardless. 

We're talking what, 50 gun crimes a year? Versus over 10,000 easily. Canada's gun laws do work.


----------



## oprisco (Dec 16, 2012)

Saw it coming. When it comes to controlling people's life, the government is really quick, but more important issues like the economy are completely being ignored.


----------



## Fruits Basket Fan (Dec 16, 2012)

Nevermind that this gun tragedy has been happening way too often for the past few months.

If now is not the time to talk about, when is it?


----------



## The Pink Ninja (Dec 16, 2012)

Massively pointless. Congress will never pass it, NRA will undermine it at every turn in state legislature and the Supremes may well overturn it.

Plus in the past getting the bill to be specific enough to ban certain weapons can just be gotten around by releasing slightly different models.

And if that wasn't enough, handguns are still deadly enough and whole communities are dedicated to modding semi-auto weapons into full-auto ones.

This is going head on against too much to stand a hope of succeeding.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Dec 16, 2012)

^ So basically, there's no chance of anything being done to address gun control or gun violence. The politicians will say pretty words and eloquent speeches while being intentionally vague and obtuse about curbing gun violence and then in a few days or weeks people will forget all about it until the next one happens and the same thing can happen all over 


About in line with my expectations.


----------



## Fruits Basket Fan (Dec 16, 2012)

Despite the US Supreme Court favoring gun rights in 2008, it never said anything against banning certain type of guns.


----------



## Stringer (Dec 16, 2012)

> Massively pointless. Congress will never pass it, NRA will undermine it at every turn in state legislature and the Supremes may well overturn it.


It's a start, it doesn't hurt to try. Better than leave things as they are.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Dec 16, 2012)

Inuhanyou said:


> No, i could tell you why you don't have one, and what i really think of your attitude in regards to a serious situation like this, but i'd probably get in trouble so i won't. Your treading on thin ice in regards to ignorance though, really really thin ice.
> 
> 28 people were just murdered and instead of talking about that, in a thread dedicated to that, your attempting to deflect to a totally unrelated issue because goodness knows that's all that's important.
> 
> Think with your brain for a second.



I think you need to think with your brain, the fiscal cliff could cause issues to the whole world economy. You don't have any scope at all, this issue can wait. We've got till the end of the month to resolve the financial issues.

Also you don't know shit about why I don't have one, I told someone to go fuck themselves in a rep. Stop thinking you know everything about me. I've figured out want thing about you though, you're reactionary and pretentious--those are a bad combination.


----------



## Donquixote Doflamingo (Dec 16, 2012)

Never going to pass.


----------



## The Pink Ninja (Dec 16, 2012)

Cinder said:


> It's a start, it doesn't hurt to try. Better than leave things as they are.



It does hurt because it burns time and political capital on things the Dems could achieve and give the right another stick to beat them with.


----------



## Mider T (Dec 16, 2012)

It won't pass, perhaps if it weren't so reactionary and more thought out such a measure could be taken more seriously.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Dec 16, 2012)

They are going to beat them with a stick regardless. That's just a goddamned excuse for cowardice.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Dec 16, 2012)

The Pink Ninja said:


> It does hurt because it burns time and political capital on things the Dems could achieve and give the right another stick to beat them with.


Not only that, it burns money when they don't have the support to pass it. Basically it's a waste of funds to propose something they know will never go through when they could probably wait two years and try when they have a better chance. 

And to all those whining about it being allowed to expire, we might not have a democratic president if he hadn't allowed it to expire.



Mider T said:


> It won't pass, perhaps if it weren't so  reactionary and more thought out such a measure could be taken more  seriously.



A thousand times this. We don't have time for this shit right now, wait to January at the very least.


----------



## Bender (Dec 16, 2012)

@Mider T

"HURR DURR. Don't lie you don't do research."

Your negs are retarded.


----------



## Mider T (Dec 16, 2012)

How are they?  You don't.  You just spam smileys, macros, and exclamation points with over reactive statements, then you're proven wrong.  Every time.  It never fails


----------



## Bender (Dec 16, 2012)

^

@Mider T

Right, right I don't thoroughly inspect things and yet unlike you I don't jump to conclusions. Keep it up, should tell ya if barely makes a scratch on my long-ass rep points. It's a nuisance.

EDIT:

lol proven wrong each time. Name a instance from last week where I was poven wrong by you.


----------



## Mansali (Dec 16, 2012)

It's good they are doing this...even if it will fail.


----------



## Mider T (Dec 16, 2012)

What are you talking about?  Now you're grasping at straws, go make a substantive thread in the Philosophical Section and you'll prove me wrong.  And your rep points are long? lol Raptorous.  Your posting style just makes me want to support mentally health reform even moreso.  You suck at defending your points.

Back to the thread



> Feinstein would not comment on whether President Obama had failed to lead on gun control. "He is going to have a bill to lead on," she said.



Re-reading this, it seems that Feinstein herself doesn't even expect this to pass but just to encourage discussion.  I guess that's cool, luckily she's in California so she's one of the few Senators that can propose this without committing political suicide.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Dec 16, 2012)

Mansali said:


> It's good they are doing this...even if it will fail.


Explain your (obviously lack of) logic. 

If it's known that it will fail by doing this they are wasting money and giving the Republicans more room to say "They're wasting money in things they known will fail" and "They're distracting us from the issue of the fiscal cliff with things that won't pass". 

See the problem with a lot of these shitty arguments I'm hearing is the come completely from a place of emotion. Show someone a picture of a dead child and you can get any bill put up for a vote. 

What happened was really sad, but it doesn't mean we need badly cobbled together legislature that's rushed to a vote to fail and waste more money.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Dec 16, 2012)

Only in America can someone 1 star a thread dedicated to somebody putting up some sort of effort for gun safety regulations.

If every politician is just a coward looking out for their own jobs, and people actually support that, then basically they deserve what they get as a result

Its just common sense cause and effect


----------



## Bender (Dec 16, 2012)

@Mider T

lol nice strawman. You can't even bring up an instance of when it happened just saying, "go  to __ section and it'll happen" is a cop-out.


----------



## Stringer (Dec 16, 2012)

Inuhanyou said:


> They are going to beat them with a stick regardless. That's just a goddamned excuse for cowardice.


Pretty much.



The Pink Ninja said:


> It does hurt because it burns time and political capital on things the Dems could achieve and give the right another stick to beat them with.


This is not an isolated incident, it's a recurring matter. If they aren't able to make an ounce of progress with the murder of these kids still being fresh in collective memory, they never will. Although their chances are slim given the country's obsession with guns, it's also good to note that fatalism never solves anything.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Dec 16, 2012)

Inuhanyou said:


> Only in America can someone 1 star a thread dedicated to somebody putting up some sort of effort for gun safety regulations.
> 
> If every politician is just a coward looking out for their own jobs, and people actually support that, then basically they deserve what they get as a result



The total lack of a realistic idea of what's going on in here is just sad. If some of these people didn't protect their job it could be worse, so count yourself lucky. It's not a game to lose your head in and be some idealist child, it's about picking your battles and winning strategic victories.


----------



## Mider T (Dec 16, 2012)

Bender said:


> @Mider T
> 
> lol nice strawman. You can't even bring up an instance of when it happened just saying, "go  to __ section and it'll happen" is a cop-out.



Can you not read?



> You suck at defending your points.
> 
> Back to the thread



There is no strawman, this isn't a debate.


----------



## neko-sennin (Dec 16, 2012)

...And thus, before bodies, let alone heads, have had a chance to cool off, the bad apples have once again decided things for the rest of the barrel.


----------



## Bender (Dec 16, 2012)

@Mider T

Good god just stop. I read what you said and it was crap. Just stop and get back to the topic.


----------



## Mansali (Dec 16, 2012)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Explain your (obviously lack of) logic.
> 
> If it's known that it will fail by doing this they are wasting money and giving the Republicans more room to say "They're wasting money in things they known will fail" and "They're distracting us from the issue of the fiscal cliff with things that won't pass".
> 
> ...



It can be used later on during elections. The democrats have been weak on this issue and have not been tough enough to bring this up. Bringing it up now is good because the Democrats can make this case to the American people. By rejecting this the Republicans are just digging an even bigger hole..

As these shootings increase...more and more people are going to support more gun regulation. 

Also I think this is a much bigger thing than the made up 'fiscal cliff'


----------



## Mider T (Dec 16, 2012)

Inuhanyou said:


> If every politician is just a coward looking out for their own jobs, and people actually support that, then basically they deserve what they get as a result



Not sure what you want here.  It's like you have no idea how politics works.


----------



## Bender (Dec 16, 2012)

@Mansali



> Also I think this is a much bigger thing than the made up 'fiscal cliff'



The fiscal cliff is of equal important chum.


----------



## Mansali (Dec 16, 2012)

Bender said:


> @Mansali
> 
> 
> 
> The fiscal cliff is of equal important chum.



The negotiations are but the deadline has been hyped up by the Republicans. The term "fiscal cliff" was invented by a republican who is afraid of the defense cuts and the expiration of the Bush tax cuts for the rich.


----------



## Wilykat (Dec 16, 2012)

Even if the law passes, it won't stop mass killing.  Idiot murderers and murderers with mental problem would ignore the law anyway.


----------



## Mako (Dec 16, 2012)

About time. It'll cause some controversies, but whatever - I'm thankful it's being introduced.

I'm still not convinced that this bill will stop anything. Sure, a little more restrictions on gun purchases and use; but I think it'll do more harm than good. @ above poster:  People kill people.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Dec 16, 2012)

Obama has not advocated for a single damn thing in regards to gun regulation in 4 years of office, why think he or anyone else advocate for something now? 

The reason he doesn't advocate for it is either because he's too cowardly to go against the NRA or has a deal with them not to say anything or go against them. It would not be the first instance of politicians being corrupt with the gun lobby. As i recall, the very month of the Giffords massacre, Jan Brewer made the decision to  sponsor and receive royalties from making the Colt the official state gun of Alabama.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Dec 16, 2012)

Foster said:


> About time. It'll cause some controversies, but whatever - I'm thankful it's being introduced.


It's nothing new, it expired a few years ago. And it's being introduced at a time when we have bigger, more important issues at hand.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Dec 16, 2012)

Wilykat said:


> Even if the law passes, it won't stop mass killing.  Idiot murderers and murderers with mental problem would ignore the law anyway.



The laws we're talking about, would disable many people from getting guns to begin with, as in from actually being able to purchase them. The black market is hardly a conventional means of acquiring weapons that some random person would be able to access.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Dec 16, 2012)

Inuhanyou said:


> Obama has not advocated for a single damn thing in regards to gun regulation in 4 years of office, why think he or anyone else advocate for something now?
> 
> The reason he doesn't advocate for it is either because he's too cowardly to go against the NRA or has a deal with them not to say anything or go against them. It would not be the first instance of politicians being corrupt with the gun lobby. As i recall, the very month of the Giffords massacre, Jan Brewer made the decision to  sponsor and receive royalties from making the Colt the official state gun of Alabama.



If he had done something he wouldn't be our President anymore, more than likely. It's not cowardice, it's realizing what's more important.



Inuhanyou said:


> The laws we're talking about, would disable  many people from getting guns to begin with, as in from actually being  able to purchase them. The black market is hardly a conventional means  of acquiring weapons that some random person would be able to  access.



Odd, because people seem to get prohibited things like drugs all the time.


----------



## navy (Dec 16, 2012)

Why do you guys assume the/some Democrats are only pretending to be pro-gun?


----------



## Inuhanyou (Dec 16, 2012)

In case you haven't noticed Tube, i've made the decision not to respond to you as a person who deflects from the topic at hand. So yeah, your wasting your time.


----------



## Bender (Dec 16, 2012)

@Mansali

That's all insignificant to getting the tax raise deal passed. The Republicans need to stop acting as a shield for their corporation bunk buddies and realize that they're not at all acting patriotic due to their shadiness. They're being petty self-serving cunts. Have you ever seen the 2012 Lincoln? It's ironic because the republicans were the heroes back then while the Dems were the bad guys. It's chagrining that they can't return to the good fashioned values that they had back then. 


Boehner want to negociate and at the same time he wants to keep his position, some in his party do not want to negociate anything, one of the reason they want to sabotage President Obama agenda. Some of those Republican hate to see Obama in the White House and they will do anything possible to stop his progran. And proof of that is some of those Republicans did to Susan Rice to sabotage this well educated woman nomination for Secretary of Estate.

Shit they can't even call themselves politicians since most of the GOP just want to see Obama fail. If he fails the country goes down the drain. Lots of sensible logic from these guys.


----------



## Bender (Dec 16, 2012)

@Inuhanyou & CTK

Come on why can't you guys get along?  

@Inu

CTK can't help that he's snappy like that sometimes man. He's more or less still preaching the same wise sensible values you are.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Dec 16, 2012)

navy said:


> Why do you guys assume the/some Democrats are only pretending to be pro-gun?



I don't think all of them are anti-gun, democrats seem to actually go with what they think more often. 



Inuhanyou said:


> In case you haven't noticed Tube, i've made the decision not to respond to you as a person who deflects from the topic at hand. So yeah, your wasting your time.


And here you are. 

What I read was, "I'm a reactionary tool who can't prioritize the issues (gun rights are more important than the world's economy even though there's no rush to fix this issue before the next two weeks are up) or think of valid arguments against the vast amount of logic you're throwing on me so I've chosen to tuck my tail between legs and run away from the argument like we tools are prone to do."


----------



## Inuhanyou (Dec 16, 2012)

navy said:


> Why do you guys assume the/some Democrats are only pretending to be pro-gun?



Who says they are pretending to be pro gun?  I just said a lot of these politicians really are pro gun


----------



## Mider T (Dec 16, 2012)

Inuhanyou said:


> Obama has not advocated for a single damn thing in regards to gun regulation in 4 years of office, why think he or anyone else advocate for something now?
> 
> The reason he doesn't advocate for it is either because he's too cowardly to go against the NRA or has a deal with them not to say anything or go against them. It would not be the first instance of politicians being corrupt with the gun lobby. As i recall, the very month of the Giffords massacre, Jan Brewer made the decision to  sponsor and receive royalties from making the Colt the official state gun of Alabama.



Probably not, probably because he always has more pressing issues at his desk.  And probably because such a thing would threaten a second term.



Inuhanyou said:


> The laws we're talking about, would disable many people from getting guns to begin with, as in from actually being able to purchase them. The black market is hardly a conventional means of acquiring weapons that some random person would be able to access.



Spoken like a true non-firearm user.

It wouldn't be so hard, the same way Prohibition's line of reasoning was "Oh! Nobody would possibly think of illegally buying liquor!  That takes some true professionals!"


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Dec 16, 2012)

Who in here as actual fired or even held a real gun outside of video games?


----------



## Destroyer of Kittens (Dec 16, 2012)

Im not too sure how this Gun Control legislation is suppose to help.  According to the all mighty google there are 88 guns per 100 people in the united states.  Unless a piece of legislation requires people to turn in their guns "not happening" then I cant see this doing any bit of good.  And assuming they did what Mega suggestion and compensated gun owners...  some quick math.   Assuming that each gun cost around 400 dollars "a low estimate i think.  That would mean that the government would be required to fork over 120 billion give or take.


----------



## Mider T (Dec 16, 2012)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Who in here as actual fired or even held a real gun outside of video games?



Not Inuhanyou or Bender that's for sure.


----------



## navy (Dec 16, 2012)

Freedan said:


> I'm glad someone is being very quick about this. I just hope *Republicans *will agree to this. If they don't, the only thing they'll tell me is that the constitutional right to carry tools of murder trumps people's lives.





Inuhanyou said:


> A bill can be introduced, but it will probably fail like all the others. The *GOP *still hold the house after all. They would not budge.
> 
> Don't think a tragedy like this will stop them from being puppets of the NRA. Just like a lot of them *dems are too cowardly* to openly attack the NRA themselves.





Inuhanyou said:


> They are going to beat them with a stick regardless. That's just a goddamned excuse for *cowardice*.





Mansali said:


> It can be used later on during elections. *The democrats have been weak on this issue and have not been tough enough to bring this up. Bringing it up now is good because the Democrats can make this case to the American people. By rejecting this the Republicans are just digging an even bigger hole..*
> 
> As these shootings increase...more and more people are going to support more gun regulation.
> 
> Also I think this is a much bigger thing than the made up 'fiscal cliff'



Just a few...


----------



## Inuhanyou (Dec 16, 2012)

Proliferation would be the main point kittens. Stopping further proliferation . Nobody is coming to take away anyone's weapons. Simply making it harder for people to get them and narrows the common percentage down to those who are likely more responsible with owning a gun.


----------



## Bender (Dec 16, 2012)

@CTK

*raises hand*

Long-time ago when I was 7-8 or 10. I forget. I was with my aunt who took me to a friends house. Her sons showed me a firearm and let me shoot it at his wall. I shot at the tit of a picture of his girlfriend. Thinking about it now. It's a terrible feeling that I even held one.


----------



## Coteaz (Dec 16, 2012)

Damn, you nerds are getting really worked up tonight. Chill out, world's gonna end on Friday anyways


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Dec 16, 2012)

Mider T said:


> Not Inuhanyou or Bender that's for sure.



Lol. 



Inuhanyou said:


> Proliferation would be the main point kittens. Stopping further proliferation . Nobody is coming to take away anyone's weapons. Simply making it harder for people to get them and narrows the common percentage down to those who are likely more responsible.



Remember when Obama get elected and people were running out buying all those guns? 

That would just happen again. The ban can't go into effect immediately and gun sales would SOAR. 



Bender said:


> @CTK
> 
> *raises hand*
> 
> Long-time ago when I was 7-8 or 10. I forget. I was with my aunt who took me to a friends house. Her sons showed me a firearm and let me shoot it at his wall. I shot at the tit of a picture of his girlfriend. Thinking about it now. It's a terrible feeling that I even held one.



Well that's a pretty fucked story, I mean you can't just let kids fire guns at walls or even have guns unsupervised for that matter. 

I've fired guns more than a few times, usually at a range but there were sometimes I had to shoot a snake or something in the yard.


----------



## T7 Bateman (Dec 16, 2012)

Hope the Congress really does work together to get this bill passed but I doubt it. That's the sad thing it doesn't matter how many die or who dies cuz they will still never agree.


----------



## navy (Dec 16, 2012)

Inuhanyou said:


> Obama has not advocated for a single damn thing in regards to gun regulation in 4 years of office, why think he or anyone else advocate for something now?
> 
> *The reason he doesn't advocate for it is either because he's too cowardly to go against the NRA or has a deal with them not to say anything or go against them.* It would not be the first instance of politicians being corrupt with the gun lobby. As i recall, the very month of the Giffords massacre, Jan Brewer made the decision to  sponsor and receive royalties from making the Colt the official state gun of Alabama.



I missed this big one. 

I ve only seen Obama refer to guns in the 2nd debate. How do you know he isnt a gun enthusiast himself?


----------



## Mider T (Dec 16, 2012)

^He isn't.  His votes while serving in the Illinois Senate prove so.  NRA gave him a rating as well.


----------



## Bender (Dec 16, 2012)

@CTK

It's unusual that there were black kids living somewhere out in suburban areas carried pieces like the one they let me held. I was to hit the target they had plastered on the wall but hit the chick instead. I believe I was shaking. I wish I knew the background of my aunt's friends but alas it's a rarity that we ever have convos on her in my family. We live in Chicagoland and she lived in California (a place we barely contact as much).


----------



## Destroyer of Kittens (Dec 16, 2012)

Inyu.  the damage is already done.  1/3 of American housholds have a firearm of some sort in them.  The weapons are already plenty prolific.  the only thing that this legislation would do imo is stop transactions, and even if you managed to stop transactions the fact still remains it isnt difficult to aquire a weapon even if you dont already have one via stealing one from a neighbor or whatever.


----------



## neko-sennin (Dec 16, 2012)

Let me explain to everyone what will happen if they try to play takebacks with guns: a rash of conveniently-timed "burglaries" and lots of previously-registered weapons simply going unaccounted for. 

I know it's the sort of thing I would do if the government just up and decided to start confiscating my personal property Just Because. I would obviously have to keep my property outside of my home for a while, and take a hit for self-inflicted property damage, but it seems a small price to pay to hang on to what's rightfully mine in the long haul. 



Inuhanyou said:


> The laws we're talking about, would disable many people from getting guns to begin with, as in from actually being able to purchase them. The black market is hardly a conventional means of acquiring weapons that some random person would be able to access.



Yeah, about as well as it works against drugs and Mexicans, I imagine. 

According to my history books (and my late grandfather), it was Super Effective against alcohol, too.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Dec 16, 2012)

navy said:


> I missed this big one.
> 
> I ve only seen Obama refer to guns in the 2nd debate. How do you know he isnt a gun enthusiast?



I don't, but based on his record i would not be surprised. He's got big fat F for gun safety in every category.

And not only has he not done or said anything substantial in regards to gun safety, he's actually expanded gun carrying to Amtrack trains and public parks. Those are bills he himself has signed of his own volition.


----------



## Mider T (Dec 16, 2012)

Inuhanyou said:


> I don't, but based on his record i would not be surprised. He's got big fat F for gun safety in every category.



Where are these grades at?  As far as I know, politicians are graded by their support or lacktherof gun rights.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Dec 16, 2012)

neko-sennin said:


> Yeah, about as well as it works against drugs and Mexicans, I imagine.
> 
> According to my history books (and my late grandfather), it was Super Effective against alcohol, too.




Prohibition was an abject failure because people were killing themselves trying to make their own alcohol. You can't make your own guns, secondly i'm not saying anything about banning guns, like Prohibition or Drugs, so stop saying it. Its about more stringent safety regulations for owning and purchasing.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Dec 16, 2012)

Mider T said:


> Where are these grades at?  As far as I know, politicians are graded by their support or lacktherof gun rights.



http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/76717-gun-control-group-gives-obama-an-f


----------



## navy (Dec 16, 2012)

Mider T said:


> ^He isn't.  His votes while serving in the Illinois Senate prove so.  NRA gave him a rating as well.



The NRA was bullshitting. 

I dont see any real antiigun rhetoric anywhere. Even the NRA had to make them up...

I suspect Obama and other Dems feel the exact same way about guns that I do. I guess it isnt liberal enough.


----------



## Destroyer of Kittens (Dec 16, 2012)

Some interesting statistics involving gun violence in the united states.


----------



## Ceria (Dec 16, 2012)

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. 

I'd like to know what the ratio of deaths there are, are more people killed by guns or killed by drunk drivers? Where's the outrage for those who die thanks to a DUI driver? 

Everytime there's a tragedy this over-reaction happens. If you prevent us from being able to purchase assault weapons how will we be able to defend ourselves against the criminals that do have them and will always have them?

Something has to be done, i just don't think this is the proper way to go about it. Arming school resource officers should be a good step.


----------



## Mansali (Dec 16, 2012)

Ceria said:


> Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
> 
> I'd like to know what the ratio of deaths there are, are more people killed by guns or killed by drunk drivers? Where's the outrage for those who die thanks to a DUI driver?
> 
> ...



Canada, Japan and Britian say Hi! 

Especially Japan


----------



## Mider T (Dec 16, 2012)

Inuhanyou said:


> http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/76717-gun-control-group-gives-obama-an-f





> Obama signed legislation this year that would allow guns in national parks and on Amtrak trains.
> 
> The two gun measures were attached as amendments to larger pieces of legislation ? a bill cracking down on credit card companies and a transportation appropriations bill, respectively ? that the president generally supported.





> That atmosphere in Congress likely made it difficult for the administration to take on gun rights supporters.



Not seeing the problem here.  Don't have issue with guns in national parks and there are no metal detectors in Amtrak stations to begin with.


----------



## navy (Dec 16, 2012)

You're not progressive enough.


----------



## Mider T (Dec 16, 2012)

You can be a progressive realist .  Thing about groups like those though is they only care about their agenda, they fail to consider what the political climate will be like for the guy in charge to push it through.


----------



## dark messiah verdandi (Dec 16, 2012)

I don't support the bill.
A BAN, are you serious?
Just make it so that owners of assault weapons have to obtain a psychological test and a psychologist's  permission to obtain the weapon.

Also, that assault weapons must always be accounted for, and if found negligent in their ownership, and the arms come up missing, the owner gets up to a year in jail.
Obviously crazies don't need it, so yeah.

Also, I would say firstly that usually criminals don't BUY assault weapons in the first place. They usually assemble them from parts shipped from foriegn countries, and sell them here on the black market.

No criminal unless they are suicide mass murderers actually buys assault weapons over the counter.

We can only solve this on a case by case basis. Taking away guns from law-abiding citizens doesn't improve the situation, it makes it worse.


Yes, I voted democrat, but I did not vote pussy.
I don't support it. Look at Israel. They don't have half of the problems we do, simply because everyone has a gun on em. It's a way of life, and because no one can be fucked with, no one is fucked with.

I am against non-proliferation of guns. It simply makes everyone who doesn't have a gun vulnerable.


Banning assault weapons does nothing, as I can still by a plethora of weapons at wal-mart.
Reloading speed is a small factor. If I wanted to kill people, I can. Doesn't matter how fast my bullets shoot.


----------



## Soldaun (Dec 16, 2012)

I'm going to vote in the opposite direction of most people opinions I have read so far and state banning a particular group of weapons will not help. People outside of the gun culture, specifically a lot of people in this thread are disconnected with the mentality of most firearms owners. It is much more difficult to obtain a weapon than you think outside of outright theft, and in most cases theft from someone you know. At that point it is up to the owner to properly secure said guns. Historically weapon bans in the U. S. sparks higher crime rates and not lower. If you have the report feeling a person you are about to attack has a reliable form of self defense, preferably a concealed carry handgun you will be swayed from attacking said person. 

Banning guns is the last thing that needs to happen as it only hurts legitimate owners of said guns as laws do not stop someone dedicated on committing a crime from still attaining said gun. Blaming the gun and not the owner is not the answer.


----------



## Ippy (Dec 16, 2012)

But how will the inbreds express their God-given right to protect their homes from the Mexicans and Arabs?


----------



## Ippy (Dec 16, 2012)

Ceria said:


> Guns don't kill people, people kill people.


With guns.


----------



## Soldaun (Dec 16, 2012)

Ippy said:


> With guns.



... And knives, hammers, cars, bricks, rocks, ect. 

So with that logic all of those should be banned too.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Dec 16, 2012)

Guns are made to kill, those other things are not. You'd think some of you would know the difference


----------



## Ippy (Dec 16, 2012)

Soldaun said:


> ... And knives, hammers, cars, bricks, rocks, ect.
> 
> So with that logic all of those should be banned too.


All of those other objects are intended to be used for something other than killing.

Knives can be used for food preparation, hammers for a multitude of DIY projects, cars for transport, bricks for shelter, rocks for mineral acquisition, and guns for..... killing.


----------



## Soldaun (Dec 16, 2012)

Inuhanyou said:


> Guns are made to kill, those other things are not. You'd think some of you would know the difference



The initial concept of the firearm was intended for the sole purpose of murder, today the concept has expanded into collecting firearms as well as having fun at the range. They are not something to be feared, but respected. Gun aren't the problem, the irresponsible people who own and use them are.

You don't need a high powered rifle capable of shooting at a very high rate of speed, but just like any sport where bigger is better it is still fun to own and use such firearms. The sole existence of such firearms will not cause death, the irresponsible use of them will. Do not blame the tool, blame the owner.


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Dec 16, 2012)

Ippy said:


> All of those other objects are intended to be used for something other than killing.
> 
> Knives can be used for food preparation, hammers for a multitude of DIY projects, cars for transport, bricks for shelter, rocks for mineral acquisition, *and guns for..... killing.*



and self defense that doesn't necessarily involve killing the person you're defending yourself from.


----------



## Ceria (Dec 16, 2012)

Ippy said:


> With guns.





Soldaun said:


> ... And knives, hammers, cars, bricks, rocks, ect.
> 
> So with that logic all of those should be banned too.



Don't forget about Cars too, baseball bats, boats and even molecules.


----------



## Sasuke_Bateman (Dec 16, 2012)

Yes guns are good Americans, reject any form of gun control


----------



## Daxter (Dec 16, 2012)

Good fucking god, this is so very late to the party, but I`m glad it`s been proposed.

Like someone said about the GOP holding house though - what are the chances?

Although even the crazy GOP, post-Connecticut shootings, might be persuaded just enough to put this through. There's no grey area, not in the wake of what has just taken place, and perhaps that's just enough to move at least some of the saner members, as sad as that is that it must come to this.


----------



## Axl Low (Dec 16, 2012)

actually the only reason i now have a shotgun is because my neighbor threatened to kill my father and dog in front of me and the police refuse to take a report.
I do plan to give the shotgun up though after the situation is resolved. 
Police around here are lazy. They told me to come about back with the report *when something actually happens. *
And i can't get an order of protection without guess what? a police report :/

Guy threatens my father in front of me then says your dog might end up with a wrung neck and they don't care.
Sorry but if this guy steps to my father when the police refuse to do shit triggers are pulled, hammers are dropped and someone is dead.


----------



## Soldaun (Dec 16, 2012)

Yami Munesanzun said:


> and self defense that doesn't necessarily involve killing the person you're defending yourself from.



I hope you never find yourself with a home invasion because that mentality will hurt you more than it will help. Often times a show of force showing the attacker you are willing and capable of killing them will defer them from further hostile actions simply because they do not want to lose their life themselves despite what their actions say otherwise. Should you have to take their life then so be it, I would rather have a good citizen keep their life instead of criminal keep theirs and you lose yours because you couldn't bring yourself to defend you and your family.


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Dec 16, 2012)

Soldaun said:


> I hope you never find yourself with a home invasion because that mentality will hurt you more than it will help. Often times a show of force showing the attacker you are willing and capable of killing them will defer them from further hostile actions simply because they do not want to lose their life themselves despite what their actions say otherwise. Should you have to take their life then so be it, I would rather have a good citizen keep their life instead of criminal keep theirs and you lose yours because you couldn't bring yourself to defend you and your family.



I live in California, and in a well locked-down house at night. 

I honestly don't think I have to worry about such a thing happening, at least not as much as other places do, anyways.

anyways, shoot them in the leg or foot. maybe the stomach. that's what I was referring to, don't make assumptions.


----------



## Ippy (Dec 16, 2012)

Soldaun said:


> The initial concept of the firearm was intended for the sole purpose of murder, today the concept has expanded into collecting firearms as well as having fun at the range. They are not something to be feared, but respected. Gun aren't the problem, the irresponsible people who own and use them are.
> 
> You don't need a high powered rifle capable of shooting at a very high rate of speed, but just like any sport where bigger is better it is still fun to own and use such firearms. The sole existence of such firearms will not cause death, the irresponsible use of them will. Do not blame the tool, blame the owner.


No matter what excuses you come up with, the sole reason for owning a gun is to kill something with it.  Period.

You can put a bow on it all you want, but you cannot escape that one simple truth.

Again, all of those other objects are intended to be used for other actions beyond killing another living being.


----------



## Soldaun (Dec 16, 2012)

Yami Munesanzun said:


> I live in California, and in a well locked-down house at night.
> 
> I honestly don't think I have to worry about such a thing happening, at least not as much as other places do, anyways.
> 
> anyways, shoot them in the leg or foot. maybe the stomach. that's what I was referring to, don't make assumptions.



As good as your intentions are, that will cause more problems than it will solve. It leaves you wide open for law suites from your attacker. It may seem odd, but those types of lawsuits do happen, and at the cost of your financial stability in some cases if the judge is to stupid to not throw it out. It is better to kill the attacker than leave him wounded.

Ippy, I own 5 firearms personally and I do not intend to use them for murder, your generalizations are over simplified wholly single minded. Firearms ownership is not so simple, and in that respect you are wholly incorrect. You happen to be in the group of people I said is disconnected from the firearm ownership society, and as a result any opinion you have on it carries less weight until you decide to educate yourself beyond such a mentality. 

There are a lot of things as far as politics go that I do not know about and as such I shouldn't form an opinion until I educate myself, you should do the same with firearms.


----------



## neodragzero (Dec 16, 2012)

Soldaun said:


> Ippy, I own 5 firearms personally and I do not intend to use them for murder, your generalizations are over simplified wholly single minded.


Not really. The point that firearms are given to have a higher design intent for killing still stands. Any attempt to simply make the " an kill with cars, bare hands, knives, etc." argument still ignores an obvious difference in severity where no police officer will ever claim that they want to deal with a criminal armed with a gun rather than bare handed or knife wielding.

It's an odd disconnect to simply blame the owner of a weapon as if the presence of a weapon itself isn't a particular factor that changes a person much less the matter of a situation.

I also dislike the idea of expanded gun ownership in the fashion of a civilian arms race.


----------



## drache (Dec 16, 2012)

good and i fucking dare the GOP to stand in its way


----------



## Soldaun (Dec 16, 2012)

Why not blame the owner, it's not the firearms fault it was used for a murder. Mental illness is the problem here, and not the existence of firearms. A person intent on harming or killing another person will find a way regardless of what tools he is afforded. Firearms do not have a mind of their own, as I said before firearms are to be respected,  I certainly respect mine. 

It is so simple to find a scapegoat and go after the simple fixes when the real problem at hand is not being addressed.


----------



## sadated_peon (Dec 16, 2012)

Soldaun said:


> ... And knives, hammers, cars, bricks, rocks, ect.
> 
> So with that logic all of those should be banned too.



Its funny you mention the car. Considering that you need a license to drive, have to pay fees every year, and in most cases are required to own insurance in case you hurt some. You even get registered to that car and police are allowed to confirm it at any time.

Yet a gun which sole design is to be a weapon has less restrictions placed on it. 

By all means tell me why a blind man should be allowed to operate a gun but not a car


----------



## Raiden (Dec 16, 2012)

All of those things exist in other countires as well with substantially lower shootings.


----------



## Soldaun (Dec 16, 2012)

Never said a blind man should operate a gun, did I?


----------



## God (Dec 16, 2012)

bad     idea


----------



## ShadowReij (Dec 16, 2012)

Meh, I'll celebrate if it passes not for a suggestion.


----------



## Bender (Dec 16, 2012)

drache said:


> good and i fucking dare the GOP to stand in its way



Considering the candlelight vigil at the gates of the Whitehouse with people pleading for Obama to pass a bill that will ban/restrict firearms the GOP would indeed further destroy their rep if they speak out against it. If they do...get the popcorn ready shit is going to get hysterical. Namely the sad sight of them being  crucified by called pricks by every state of people (except those with the majority of gun-crazy hicks).


----------



## Soldaun (Dec 16, 2012)

Yes Bender, among others, because every pro 2A citizen is a crazy gun toting hick. Generalizations and ignorance is in abundance around you.


----------



## Mintaka (Dec 16, 2012)

Don't we have alot more pressing things to worry about right now?

Like the debt problem?


----------



## Inuhanyou (Dec 16, 2012)

So we should not deal with a problem because we apparently have another longer term problem to deal with? Why deal with anything if we can only focus on one thing at a time?

I'd say gun massacres happening every few weeks are pretty big problem, maybe some people don't agree.


----------



## Bender (Dec 16, 2012)

@Mintaka

That problem is up to whether the GOP are going to be self-satisfying fuckwads or actually help us with the problem.


EDIT:

@Soldaun

The second amendment was controlled back then because guns weren't as wildly advanced as our current firearms.  If our forefathers were alive seeing the carnage that  resulted from people being able to acquire such heavy weaponry I'm certain they too would agree to restriction.


----------



## warp drive (Dec 16, 2012)

A population of 307 million people held about 200 million handguns and 100 million long guns (rifles and shotguns) in 2009. While most guns are publicly purchase for protection or entertainment (practice shooting and hunting), the massive distribution of 300 million deadly firearms in a population of just 307 million people will inevitably lead to gun-cause, human fatalities. 
For protection a semi-automatic hand gun should suffice if it is necessary at all. Therefore, any other firearm is render either redundant or counterproductive in a civil society. The entertainment that a few million individuals may generate from any fully automatic firearm or any semi-automatic long gun does not morally validates a single horrific event that transcends from any of these lethal weapons. Banning the legal circulation of long guns and fully automatic firearms seems only fit in a civil society. The possibility that mad/obtuse people may theoretically resort to substitute these deadly firearms with a bomb does not justify the legal distribution of these deadly firearms at all. 




Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Not just the economy, just life in the US in general. The country is in horrible shape and a good portion of the government doesn't care that it is.



To Mr. Tube and fellow gun-lovers, one cannot suppress an important issue simply by noting another different equally important topic. If it is that important, I suggest you spread your propaganda via different related thread?not here!


----------



## Soldaun (Dec 16, 2012)

Again sasuke, blaming the tool and not the operator is the wrong answer. It's a temporary fix to a permanent problem. The underlying problem is mental disorders. Guns are not the problem, irrational people are.


----------



## neodragzero (Dec 16, 2012)

Soldaun said:


> Why not blame the owner, it's not the firearms fault it was used for a murder


It's not simply a matter of blaming the owner. The gun still carries an obvious intent in what it's designed to do. It's intellectually dishonest to pretend that the issue is only with the owner when it still remains that a gun is quite more narrow in what it's made to do. 

I will repeat this. You're going to have a hard time arguing that a police officer or just any person would rather deal with a criminal armed with a gun rather than bare handed or knife wielding. It's all the more telling when you have this:


Both the operator and the weapon have to be looked upon in terms of figuring out an issue rather than pretending that the latter isn't a problematic material at all to begin with. Such logic isn't even accepted  in Israel and Switzerland just as a reminder on how much myth building has occurred for gun ownership there.


----------



## raizen28 (Dec 16, 2012)

While the Inner Cities stay the same lol. Same ole same ole


----------



## Soldaun (Dec 16, 2012)

The purpose/intent of a firearm is determined by the owner and not the inventor. I don't care what someone invented a tool for if I, among millions of others, have found a new purpose for firearms. There are more firearms in public hands used each year that are used at the range than they are for murder or hunting. To me it would seem the public has found a new purpose for these tools other than your definition for them. Just because a tool can be used for evil by a minority does not mean it should be outlawed for the majority.


----------



## warp drive (Dec 16, 2012)

Soldaun said:


> Again sasuke, blaming the tool and not the operator is the wrong answer. It's a temporary fix to a permanent problem. The underlying problem is mental disorders. Guns are not the problem, irrational people are.



Yes, nobody argues otherwise. However, the accessibility follow by the tremendous flow of semi-automatic long guns and fully automatic firearms is UNECESSARY. The production of these firearms is counterproductive, for protection can easily be granted by small distribution of semi-automatic handguns (whereas gun purchase for entertainment is not worth a single potential massacre to preserve the legality of these deadly firearms).


----------



## raizen28 (Dec 16, 2012)

Yeah lets the criminals flood the Illegal  Gun Factories made by criminals since the other stuff is banned. Criminals helping criminals. Money for guns.

Lets also ban Murder then irrational people will stop and Criminals wont break this ban



Hey Thread Dont Attack me. I dont feel like debating and I can barely see the damn computer screen lmao


----------



## neodragzero (Dec 16, 2012)

Soldaun said:


> The purpose/intent of a firearm is determined by the owner and not the inventor.


No, it's actually a matter of both. This much is clear in terms what the uses are there for a gun, especially semi-automatic or worse, compared to what can be done with a knife. I can use pepper spray a condiment for food but it's pretty obvious what it was designed for. You're more than welcome for instance to use your gun as a hammer but we all know how odd that would be compared to using an actual hammer. Both the intent of the owner and the obvious intent in a product's design come together. All the more so when one dangerous person with a gun, or the semi-automatic gun in this case, is multiples above the destructive harm of one dangerous person with less.

I'm not suggesting that this problem is simply meant to be dealt in terms of supply but also to fix the ongoing issue of the high demand for firearms in the U.S.


----------



## Soldaun (Dec 16, 2012)

SasukeTheAlmighty said:


> Yes, nobody argues otherwise. However, the accessibility follow by the tremendous flow of semi-automatic long guns and fully automatic firearms is UNECESSARY. The production of these firearms is counterproductive, for protection can easily be granted by small distribution of semi-automatic handguns (whereas gun purchase for entertainment is not worth a single potential massacre to preserve the legality of these deadly firearms).



I am going to have to correct you, there are very few fully automatic weapons transfering between owners. First of all the paperwork and security checks prior to do so in large part prevent it. First you have to obtain a federal firearms license, you then have to purchase the firearm (but you cannot take possession of it.) once the firearm is in your name you file for a firearms stamp to own and take possession of the weapon. If you are denied you still own the weapon but cannot take possession at which point it stays in the hands of a FFL dealer, usually a local firearms sales business. If accepted you may take the firearm to your house and store it there. 

Now due the 1986 weapons ban on fully automatic weaponry it is illegal for a civilian to own a fully auto weapon made after the date the law was enacted. Due to this weapons made prior to the date become quit valuable, with cheap and often times unreliable fully automatic weapons going for no less than 5k +. Fully automatic firearms are a smaller problem than you think. 

Semi automatic long guns have their purpose for hunting as follow up shots are sometimes needed, especially if an angry animal is charging you, your gonna need the fastest shooting gun you can get if a grizzly charges you. AR type weapons, while rarer are still used for hunting. Just because it resembles firearms in use by the military does not make it more lethal than a tradition wood stock hunting rifle chambered for the same round that is also semi automatic. The look of a gun does not determine lethality. After all most anti gun politicians cannot even explain the purpose of these object they claim are evil. Ask the politician who said a barrel should was the shoulder thing that went up.


----------



## warp drive (Dec 16, 2012)

*Spoiler*: __ 





Soldaun said:


> *I am going to have to correct you, there are very few fully automatic weapons transfering between owners*. First of all the paperwork and security checks prior to do so in large part prevent it. First you have to obtain a federal firearms license, you then have to purchase the firearm (but you cannot take possession of it.) once the firearm is in your name you file for a firearms stamp to own and take possession of the weapon. If you are denied you still own the weapon but cannot take possession at which point it stays in the hands of a FFL dealer, usually a local firearms sales business. If accepted you may take the firearm to your house and store it there.
> 
> Now due the 1986 weapons ban on fully automatic weaponry it is illegal for a civilian to own a fully auto weapon made after the date the law was enacted. Due to this weapons made prior to the date become quit valuable, with cheap and often times unreliable fully automatic weapons going for no less than 5k +. Fully automatic firearms are a smaller problem than you think.
> 
> Semi automatic long guns have their purpose for hunting as follow up shots are sometimes needed, especially if an angry animal is charging you, your gonna need the fastest shooting gun you can get if a grizzly charges you. AR type weapons, while rarer are still used for hunting and irregardless of the package they come in you can also find more traditional rifles chambered in the same round that are semi auto. The look of the weapon does not determine lethality. A semi auto AR15 chambered in .223 than a traditional hunting rifle chambered for the same round and is also semi auto.







What exactly are you correcting me? Please go back and read, for I will not carry forth this fruitless exchange if you do not understand what I?m writing.


----------



## Soldaun (Dec 16, 2012)

You stated there was a tremendous flow of semi and fully auto weapons, a flow would imply transferring, aka selling and purchasing of said firearms.


----------



## Mizura (Dec 16, 2012)

T7 Bateman said:


> Hope the Congress really does work together to get this bill passed but I doubt it.


You know, whether it passes or not probably doesn't matter to the Democratic party. It's probably as effective as a a measure to slowly erode the GOP's credibility.
- It passes: Win for the Democrats!
- It doesn't pass: The GOP gets to be framed (again) as a bunch of obstructionists who don't care about the safety of school children.

If the Democratic party does this often enough, and times them right every time, it only improves its own standing while eroding the opposition party's, whether the measure passes or not.

On the other hand, if they don't at least make a symbolic attempt, then They will be the ones who'd get framed negatively.


----------



## hcheng02 (Dec 16, 2012)

Mizura said:


> You know, whether it passes or not probably doesn't matter to the Democratic party. It's probably as effective as a a measure to slowly erode the GOP's credibility.
> - It passes: Win for the Democrats!
> - It doesn't pass: The GOP gets to be framed (again) as a bunch of obstructionists who don't care about the safety of school children.
> 
> ...



Maybe, maybe not. I don't think you really understand how much power the gun lobby has in the USA. Its literally untouchable, and they've made a lot of gains the past few decades. You can't even talk about gun laws without being a gun owner otherwise you are dismissed off hand. Many Americans who own guns are single issue voters when it comes to their guns, they literally will drop every other issue and vote for the politician who goes against gun control. This is especially true in the rural areas which tend to be more conservative and vote GOP. Being seen as pro-gun control is the same as being anti-gun and the Democrats do not want to be seen as that since they will lose too many voters.

Then there is the crazy anti-Obama paranoia in the USA. Gun sales have actually gone up since Obama became president because gun owners are convinced that Obama will take away their guns despite Obama having never mention gun control legislation since coming into office.


----------



## Mizura (Dec 16, 2012)

hcheng02 said:


> Maybe, maybe not. I don't think you really understand how much power the gun lobby has in the USA.


Sure, but:
1. This law is against assault weapons. So even though many non-GOPs are attached to their guns, the only ones who really care about assault weapons are those with a gun "culture" as opposed to those just seeing them as a normal self-defense tool.
2. That core of gun-lovers are mostly dedicated GOP voters. It would not be possible to sway them no matter what, so conversely they don't really matter to the democratic party.

The last election showed that the demographics shifted a lot. You won't be able to convince anti-gays of pro-gay rights no matter what, but more and more young people aren't against gay rights. You can't convince the anti-immigration folks no matter what, but hey, more are more voters are hispanic immigrants. Now you can't convince most people to abandon their guns, but there may be a sizeable number who aren't ideologically attached to All types of weapons.

Even if the GOP blocks the legislation, the democrats get to make themselves look good to many, and make the GOP look bad to those same people.


----------



## Lindsay (Dec 16, 2012)

Mizura said:


> Sure, but:
> 1. This law is against assault weapons. So even though many non-GOPs are attached to their guns, the only ones who really care about assault weapons are those with a gun "culture" as opposed to those just seeing them as a normal self-defense tool.
> 
> 2. That core of gun-lovers are mostly dedicated GOP voters. It would not be possible to sway them no matter what, so conversely they don't really matter to the democratic party.



You'd be surprised at how many Democrats are pro-gun, especially those in swing states like Ohio, Florida, or Pennsylvania. For many Democrats in moderate districts a vote for any gun ban would be political suicide, even one against 'assault weapons'.

I wouldn't take such a bill to be a clear win-win for Democrats.


----------



## ShadowReij (Dec 16, 2012)

Lindsay said:


> You'd be surprised at how many Democrats are pro-gun, especially those in swing states like Ohio, Florida, or Pennsylvania. For many Democrats in moderate districts a vote for any gun ban would be political suicide, even one against 'assault weapons'.
> 
> I wouldn't take such a bill to be a clear win-win for Democrats.



I'm not expecting this to go anywhere regardless though I am curious, just like the  issue with reducing nukes, why do some find the neccessity for assault weapons to be available to the common citizen? Surely not just for self defense as any other gun would also serve the same purpose with the same capacity to kill.


----------



## Mizura (Dec 17, 2012)

Hm, okay, it seems like I've underestimated America's gun culture. I admit I'm quite baffled. What about grenades? Missiles? Biological weapons?


----------



## drache (Dec 17, 2012)

Mizura said:


> Hm, okay, it seems like I've underestimated America's gun culture. I admit I'm quite baffled. What about grenades? Missiles? Biological weapons?



It is baffling but it's just one of those  things that if you're not an American citizen I really don't think you can understand how powerful gun culture is


----------



## Stygian (Dec 17, 2012)

Ridiculous; no good will come from this bill even if it does pass.
It's simply an utter waste of Congress' time to even consider this.
Not to mention the fact that Dianne Feinstein(the senator putting the bill up) is a complete retard who is wholly ignorant of simple firearms related knowledge; not only that, but the hypocritical old hag HERSELF has a license to conceal carry a firearm on her person.

In short: This is nothing but sensationalist idiocy being pushed by a hypocritical moron with a long-standing hatred for firearms.

She is a disgrace to we left-wingers.


----------



## stream (Dec 17, 2012)

Stygian said:


> Not to mention the fact that Dianne Feinstein(the senator putting the bill up) is a complete retard who is wholly ignorant of simple firearms related knowledge; not only that, but the hypocritical old hag HERSELF has a license to conceal carry a firearm on her person.


Not sure if trolling? Do you even realize how contradictory these two statements are?

She was also a witness in a . She almost certainly knows more about the issue than you do.


----------



## Stygian (Dec 17, 2012)

stream said:


> Not sure if trolling… Do you even realize how contradictory these two statements are?
> 
> She was also a witness in a . She almost certainly knows more about the issue than you do.



Of course I realize how contradictory it sounds, but it cannot be denied that she posses VERY LITTLE firearms related knowledge at all.
She still, after all of this time, cannot even get the terminology correct when referring to magazines, insisting on call them clips, as seen in the quote in the OP's post.

Take a look at this photograph: 

As clearly demonstrated here, she as NO concept of firearm safety WHATSOEVER.
How do I know that? Her finger is on the trigger despite having no intent to fire, the safety is off, she has a magazine inserted into the magwell with the bolt locked, and she is MUZZLE SWEEPING THE ENTIRE AUDIENCE.
How she managed to get issued a CC permit with such a blatant lack of knowledge of the basics of firearms is beyond me.

Her witnessing a shooting gives her more knowledge of the issue than others? 
Hardly. If anything it makes her hatred for firearms even more blind, since she has suffered emotional trauma at the hands of them.

Wow... I can't remember the last time I made such a long response to someone.


----------



## stream (Dec 17, 2012)

Stygian said:


> As clearly demonstrated here, she as NO concept of firearm safety WHATSOEVER.



So what? The issue is not firearm safety, it is rampant gun shootings.


----------



## Tekkenman11 (Dec 17, 2012)

The Democrats are playing this smart, and I wonder how the Republicans will react.

If GOP let's it pass, they lose (in terms of sticking to party beliefs).

If GOP doesn't let it pass, they lose in the eyes of an emotionally stimulated people.

Either way the GOP is fucked and the Democrats will gain the upper hand when it comes to the public eye. Sounds good to me, this increase in positivity via the citizens of this country will help when they decide to tackle the shit economy next year.


----------



## Stygian (Dec 17, 2012)

stream said:


> So what? The issue is not firearm safety, it is rampant gun shootings.



With the legislature being proposed by a clueless fool with very little concept of them.
We've seen this before from other gun-control lobbyists. An example being a few years back when Representative Carolyn McCarthy proposed the Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007. When asked about barrel shrouds and why they are in her bill as banned item, she dodged the question multiple times and finally admitted to NOT EVEN KNOWING WHAT THEY ARE OR WHAT THEY DO. Do you understand that? She was attempting to ban something without the slightest clue as to what it was, probably based on name alone.

Here is a YouTube video of the interview:


----------



## Soldaun (Dec 17, 2012)

It just amazes me what kind of stigma anti 2A people put on firearms and their owners. It isn't the fact that we are dangerous or have the capacity to do harm, is it the fact they do not understand us and they fear that. I emplore anyone on this forum to go to an outside range (inside are not as much fun) and go shooting. Experience the joy we receive from firearm ownership and understand why we do what we do. Do not try and restrict us with unnecessary laws without first educating yourself on our society. Start out with a .22, even seasoned firearms owners will tell you one their favorite rifles is a .22.

Edit: go to a forum first and ask questions, members are more than willing to talk to someone who is asking questions. I would link some here but I believe there are rules against it.


----------



## Velocity (Dec 17, 2012)

Soldaun said:


> It just amazes me what kind of stigma anti 2A people put on firearms and their owners. It isn't the fact that we are dangerous or have the capacity to do harm, is it the fact they do not understand us and they fear that. I emplore anyone on this forum to go to an outside range (inside are not as much fun) and go shooting. Experience the joy we receive from firearm ownership and understand why we do what we do. Do not try and restrict us with unnecessary laws without first educating yourself on our society. Start out with a .22, even seasoned firearms owners will tell you one their favorite rifles is a .22.



Why do you label us as "anti-second-amendment"? Why do you assume we fear you, or do not understand you? Why do you act like you're different to anyone else, when in truth the only difference is that you're unwilling to even try something that might save thousands of lives each year? You do not have a different society, owning a gun doesn't separate you from the rest of the world.

You own an object that was designed, that was built, to kill. That is its sole purpose. A gun may not be able to pull its own trigger, but it was created so that someone would. The notion alone that the only defence against a gun is to have one yourself is the same one that has us in the situation where nearly every major country on the planet has nuclear weapons to act as a "deterrent". It doesn't change the fact that nuclear weapons were designed to kill and are very good at it.


----------



## Soldaun (Dec 17, 2012)

The intent of a tool does not always determine its use, millions of people each year take their rifles and handguns to the range without incident and enjoy doing so. It is not the majority that do harm it is the minority. The reason I label people willing to pass laws restricting my 2A is because I feel it is an encroachment on my liberties, specifically my freedom of choice. Why should your lifestyle be forced upon me when I mine is not upon you. You are not forced to purchase a gun, but those of us who choose to do so will. I am unwilling to let my freedoms go because I don't want the government having that much control over my life, it is unnecessary. Not just that but it is a hobby I enjoy, and a hobby I am safe performing. 

You do not realize by passing such laws you are only hindering those us of that purchase these firearms legally. Not one person who obtains them illegally and uses them for harm will be hindered by a single law passed. Saving lives is the last thing laws like this will do despite what you think. I am not about to give up my rights so some feel good can think he can did something right in the world, only to turn around sipping lattes and watching the kardashians, because after all a law was passed and no more harm can be done.


----------



## baconbits (Dec 17, 2012)

This:



Mintaka said:


> Don't we have alot more pressing things to worry about right now?
> 
> Like the debt problem?



Plus none of these laws addresses what really happened - it would only take one gun out of this man's arsenal.  Look at the murder rates during the last assault weapon ban and then use some facts to support your argument.  I don't see any from the gun control crowd so far.


----------



## αce (Dec 17, 2012)

Gun culture always confused me.
It's a fucking gun - whoopdy fucking do. Who gives a shit?
I honestly have never felt the need to want or fire a gun in my life.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Dec 17, 2012)

To all the people saying that the congress should be focusing on the fiscal cliff rather than this, you are aware they can do more than one thing at a time right?  There are over 500 members of congress and the people in the executive branch.  We can focus on the fiscal cliff AND focus on a number of other problems we have like gun violence.


----------



## Surreal (Dec 17, 2012)

♠Ace♠ said:


> Gun culture always confused me.
> It's a fucking gun - whoopdy fucking do. Who gives a shit?
> I honestly have never felt the need to want or fire a gun in my life.



Gun make you strong! Rawr! And cool! Like cigarettes! And like, like, if that evil alien all controlling entity as the government shows up with their tanks you can pew pew at them, fighting for freedomz! 

Oh oh, you can also shoot animals for no other reason than just to feel the thrill of the kill! 

Isn't all that just wonderful and not sociopathic or infantile at all?

It's also quite interesting to me, as an European, to see the response of "so I can defend myself" like it's the most natural thing in the world. 

No one stops to think that maybe, just maybe, if you feel like you need a gun to defend yourself, the society you live in is just a little bit sick, and needs some significant changes.


----------



## αce (Dec 17, 2012)

> Oh oh, you can also shoot animals for no other reason than just to feel the thrill of the kill!
> 
> Isn't all that just wonderful and not sociopathic or infantile at all?



this...


> No one stops to think that maybe, just maybe, if you feel like you need a  gun to defend yourself the society you live in is just a little bit  sick and needs some significant changes.



and this..


----------



## Soldaun (Dec 17, 2012)

Over simplistic view of why we own firearms and the culture surrounding the 2A. Your from Europe anyway making opinions on something you know nothing of.


----------



## Surreal (Dec 17, 2012)

Soldaun said:


> Over simplistic view of why we own firearms and the culture surrounding the 2A. Your from Europe anyway making opinions on something you know nothing of.



Woah, what an unexpected defence. "You don't understand." Educate me then! Show me how I'm wrong, why owning a gun is important or relevant other than for self-defence, in which case, what I said about the society stands. 

Your posts basically come down to "It's fun to shoot mah guns" which is hardly relevant and doesn't negate my point what so ever. 

Just for the record tho, I don't think you need a blanket gun ban nor do I support it. You don't need fucking assault rifles either however. Your problems are much deeper than that. Israel has a a metric fuck ton of guns, same as Finland and Switzerland for example, but you don't see them killing everything in sight.


----------



## Bender (Dec 17, 2012)

*Harry Reid Open To Gun Control Debate After Sandy Hook Shooting*



> WASHINGTON -- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) signaled Monday that gun control laws would be up for debate after the horror at Sandy Hook Elementary School, making him the highest-ranking pro-gun politician in the nation to hint that his mind may be changing.
> 
> Mourning the victims of the Friday massacre along with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Reid said that the community of Newtown and the country face a difficult time coping with the immensity of the tragedy. But, unlike with past shooting sprees, he said that coping will include considering what Congress can do about the devastating violence.
> 
> ...


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Dec 17, 2012)

Surreal said:


> Gun make you strong! Rawr! And cool! Like cigarettes! And like, like, if that evil alien all controlling entity as the government shows up with their tanks you can pew pew at them, fighting for freedomz!
> 
> Oh oh, you can also shoot animals for no other reason than just to feel the thrill of the kill!
> 
> ...


 
The other poster was right, this post is silly, overly simplified and exactly why a lot of Americans are hostile and resentful towards Europeans.


----------



## Surreal (Dec 17, 2012)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> The other poster was right, this post is silly, overly simplified and exactly why a lot of Americans are hostile and resentful towards Europeans.



You are right, it wasn't very respectful, but then again it's hard to respect people who are obsessed with guns simply because it's "fun" or because "the founding fathers said so."

To be honest, I do understand people wanting to defend themselves and I can understand that fear very well. After all, I come from a country that was war torn just 15 years ago. 

But the problem is, for every legitimate "I need a gun to protect my home and my life" you get plenty more people who treat guns like toys and can't find a legitimate reason why they should own one past something silly and trivial. But here is a kicker...you and I both knows guns are neither, which the tragic shootings prove over and over again.

I don't think Americans should lose their gun culture but I do believe it should be treated much more seriously and with a lot more scrutiny. Same goes for laws and background checks. 

In the end, guns aren't the main issue here, there is something deeply wrong with society as a whole for this to happen over and over again. Coteaz had some really good points in the other thread, about the way mental illnesses are stigmatized.

Then again, if stricter gun laws can save even a single person I would take that any day over butthurt "but it's funnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn" people.

And finally, I really don't fall under "arrogant European" because Europe has plenty of it's own hypocrisy and issues to account for. Nor do I believe Europeans are inherently superior to Americans....well maybe superior to rednecks.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Dec 17, 2012)

Surreal said:


> You are right, it wasn't very respectful, but then again it's hard to respect people who are obsessed with guns simply because it's "fun" or because "the founding fathers said so."
> 
> To be honest, I do understand people wanting to defend themselves and I can understand that fear very well. After all, I come from a country that was war torn just 15 years ago.
> 
> ...


 
Then the problem isn't the guns, the problem is that a lot of Americans are fucking idiots. This is proven by their aversion to health care reform, they're hatred of other races and their listening to half of the stuff Republicans say. 

Guns aren't the problem, it's a lack of intelligence and eudcation (in dealing with guns and just in general).


----------



## Surreal (Dec 17, 2012)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Then the problem isn't the guns, the problem is that a lot of Americans are fucking idiots. This is proven by their aversion to health care reform, they're hatred of other races and their listening to half of the stuff Republicans say.
> 
> Guns aren't the problem, it's a lack of intelligence and eudcation (in dealing with guns and just in general).



Correct, the main problem isn't the guns. But making laws stricter (or at least the checks) would be akin to attacking the symptom. It won't get rid of the cause but as I said: if even a single life can be saved, it's worth it. 

Then slowly, over time, introduce deep reforms that would deal with the main issues.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Dec 17, 2012)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> *Then the problem isn't the guns, the problem is that a lot of Americans are fucking idiots.* This is proven by their aversion to health care reform, they're hatred of other races and their listening to half of the stuff Republicans say.
> 
> Guns aren't the problem, it's a lack of intelligence and eudcation (in dealing with guns and just in general).



I'm confused, if so many American's are idiots then why do you want _more_ guns flowing through the idiotic population?


----------



## Roman (Dec 17, 2012)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Then the problem isn't the guns, the problem is that a lot of Americans are fucking idiots. This is proven by their aversion to health care reform, they're hatred of other races and their listening to half of the stuff Republicans say.
> 
> Guns aren't the problem, it's a lack of intelligence and eudcation (in dealing with guns and just in general).



Right. So because stupidity is the root cause, let's not take the tools that enable them to act on their stupidity.

Seriously, if you know people are going to act crazy, don't empower them with tools of death. That's simply common sense.


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Dec 17, 2012)

Freedan said:


> Right. So because stupidity is the root cause, let's not take the tools that enable them to act on their stupidity.
> 
> Seriously, if you know people are going to act crazy, don't empower them with tools of death. That's simply common sense.



plenty of things are "tools of death" in the right wrong hands. they're going to find other things to kill or severely hurt people with.

i know this spiel has been asserted countless times before, but so has what you're essentially implying in your post.

so instead of baww'ing over new laws (while not actually putting forth any ideas for one), how about actually putting in an honest effort of enforcing the ones that are already there?


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Dec 17, 2012)

Yami Munesanzun said:


> so instead of baww'ing over new laws (while not actually putting forth any ideas for one), how about actually putting in an honest effort of enforcing the ones that are already there?



I always hear this argument and it _sounds_ nice, but every state has different laws on the books.  So all you have to do is drive to the state with the most lax gun laws, buy your guns then drive home.

We NEED to have national gun laws so the same standards apply everywhere.


----------



## Stygian (Dec 17, 2012)

Tsukiyomi said:


> We NEED to have national gun laws so the same standards apply everywhere.



Why don't you give some EXAMPLES of these laws that you'd like enacted on the national scale?


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Dec 17, 2012)

Stygian said:


> Why don't you give some EXAMPLES of these laws that you'd like enacted on the national scale?



For starters banning high capacity magazines, there is no legitimate reason a civilian needs have 30+ rounds in a gun.

Second, force people to take classes and pass numerous tests including proving proficiency on a shooting range in order to get a license, exactly like we do for cars.

I'd also set a purchase threshold, for example once someone passes a certain number of guns say 10 or 20 or whatever the number would be, they have to show a legitimate reason for needing such an arsenal or at the very least register as a collector.

That's just off the top of my head, that's why I'm saying we should have a long national discussion about this.  I'm sure I'm missing a bunch of stuff.


----------



## Bender (Dec 17, 2012)

@Tsukiyomi



> For starters banning high capacity magazines, there is no legitimate reason a civilian needs have 30+ rounds in a gun.
> 
> Second, force people to take classes and pass numerous tests including proving proficiency on a shooting range in order to get a license, exactly like we do for cars.



Preach to choir


----------



## Stygian (Dec 17, 2012)

Tsukiyomi said:


> For starters banning high capacity magazines, there is no legitimate reason a civilian needs have 30+ rounds in a gun.



Not going to work. High capacity magazines are very readily available on the black market, and can be easily obtained by even the most inexperienced criminal. The affect would be negligible and a waste of time.
Even if all high capacity magazines were taken off the black market as well, they can still be jury rigged at home by combining multiple smaller magazines by someone with minimal tools. It's really not that difficult to do.



> Second, force people to take classes and pass numerous tests including proving proficiency on a shooting range in order to get a license, exactly like we do for cars.



I can see how that could be viewed as a good thing by some people.
However, think of how much more damage someone will do with a firearm when they go batshit crazy when they actually have PROFICIENCY TRAINING WITH THEM, as opposed to when a random jackoff who has never touched one before buys it off the black market and goes on a rampage.
Not sounding like such a good idea now, is it?



> I'd also set a purchase threshold, for example once someone passes a certain number of guns say 10 or 20 or whatever the number would be, they have to show a legitimate reason for needing such an arsenal or at the very least register as a collector.



That's a direct intrusion upon the 2nd Amendment, and an idiotic one at that.
Why does it matter how many guns the person owns? If they decide to go crazy and start shooting at people, they're not going to be carrying around those 10 or 20+ guns with them. So that would also have no effect, unless they were planning on arming a bunch of other people with weapons out of their arsenal, and that's not something that's seen very often.


You'll have to do better than that if you're hoping to have any meaningful effect on gun crime.


----------



## Megaharrison (Dec 17, 2012)

To quote an Israeli political scientist who deals with Gun Culture in Israel:



> “An armed society,” Nedivi wrote, quoting the science fiction writer Robert A. Heinlein, “is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.” It may be a bit odd to think of Israeli society as polite, but when it comes to guns it is, and for just the reason articulated by Heinlein: When everyone has a gun, guns are no longer seen as talismans by weak, frightened, and unstable men seeking a sense of self-validation, but as killing machines that are to be handled with the utmost caution and care.



This is the key to reduce gun violence in the US without total bans, imo. People need to change how guns are viewed and what they are seen as necessary for.


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Dec 17, 2012)

Tsukiyomi said:


> For starters banning high capacity magazines, there is no legitimate reason a civilian needs have 30+ rounds in a gun.
> 
> Second, force people to take classes and pass numerous tests including proving proficiency on a shooting range in order to get a license, exactly like we do for cars.
> 
> ...


honestly, i think at the basis, mandatory safety classes and psyche psychological tests are necessary.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Dec 17, 2012)

Stygian said:


> Not going to work. High capacity magazines are very readily available on the black market, and can be easily obtained by even the most inexperienced criminal. The affect would be negligible and a waste of time.
> Even if all high capacity magazines were taken off the black market as well, they can still be jury rigged at home by combining multiple smaller magazines by someone with minimal tools. It's really not that difficult to do.



You're kidding right?  The vast majority of people wouldn't even know where to begin looking for a black market hookup for illegal weaponry.



Stygian said:


> I can see how that could be viewed as a good thing by some people.
> However, think of how much more damage someone will do with a firearm when they go batshit crazy when they actually have PROFICIENCY TRAINING WITH THEM, as opposed to when a random jackoff who has never touched one before buys it off the black market and goes on a rampage.
> Not sounding like such a good idea now, is it?



Yeah you're right, much better to have hundreds of millions of guns floating around in unskilled hands right?  Give me a break.

If you're that concerned about then the solution is simple, incorporate a psychological evaluation into the licensing process.



Stygian said:


> That's a direct intrusion upon the 2nd Amendment, and an idiotic one at that.
> Why does it matter how many guns the person owns? If they decide to go crazy and start shooting at people, they're not going to be carrying around those 10 or 20+ guns with them. So that would also have no effect, unless they were planning on arming a bunch of other people with weapons out of their arsenal, and that's not something that's seen very often.



No its not.  Where in the constitution does it say you have the right to a massive arsenal of weaponry?  No rights in constitution are absolute.  That's why we can place restrictions on religions that say things like "no human sacrifice" and restrictions on freedom of speech that says you can't threaten someones life.



Stygian said:


> You'll have to do better than that if you're hoping to have any meaningful effect on gun crime.



Two things, first those are perfectly good starts to curbing gun violence.  That fact that you personally don't think so doesn't change that.  Second I even admitted this was an incomplete list and we should have a national discussion to come up with a more complete one.


----------



## Mider T (Dec 17, 2012)

Just like most people don't know how to get weed right?


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Dec 17, 2012)

Mider T said:


> Just like most people don't know how to get weed right?



Your neighbor can be growing weed in their back yard, hardly the same thing as finding a hookup for illegal weaponry.


----------



## Stygian (Dec 17, 2012)

Tsukiyomi said:


> You're kidding right?  The vast majority of people wouldn't even know where to begin looking for a black market hookup for illegal weaponry.



You'd be surprised at how easy it is. You talk the to the right people in the right neighborhoods and pay the right price, and you can get hookups with not much issue, especially if you know the right person. It's even easier in the south where cartels have a large influence, and traffic arms into the region.
Why do you think it's so easy to obtain prohibited drugs like cocaine, meth, and heroine?




> Yeah you're right, much better to have hundreds of millions of guns floating around in unskilled hands right?  Give me a break.
> 
> If you're that concerned about then the solution is simple, incorporate a psychological evaluation into the licensing process.



Safety training is one thing, mandatory proficiency tests is a completely different thing. Who's going to kill more people, the person without proficiency training, or the person with it? The answer should be obvious.

Lmao. Because psychological evaluations can't be beaten, right? Are you really this naive or are you saying this because you believe me to be?
Law enforcement agencies, military, and CIA, have no psycho's in them thanks to psychological evaluations, right?
CIA agents didn't just torture a man and rape him, and there have never been marines who have pissed on the bodies of dead children, and there has never been a case of police brutality or murder, right?
How did these crazy sick fucks make it into the military, CIA, and law enforcement, despite the psychological evaluations in each?
It's because the evaluations and tests can be beaten.




> No its not.  Where in the constitution does it say you have the right to a massive arsenal of weaponry?  No rights in constitution are absolute.  That's why we can place restrictions on religions that say things like "no human sacrifice" and restrictions on freedom of speech that says you can't threaten someones life.



Limiting a law-abiding citizens right to own weapons once a limit has been reached on number of firearms owned, ISN'T a violation of their right to keep and bear arms as they see fit? 
That would NEVER hold up in a court. Why do you think it hasn't been proposed(it hasn't as far as I'm aware)? The Supreme Court would slap that shit down.
I'm no legal expert though, so I'll let it go at that.





> Two things, first those are perfectly good starts to curbing gun violence.  That fact that you personally don't think so doesn't change that.  Second I even admitted this was an incomplete list and we should have a national discussion to come up with a more complete one.



They are not good starts. You didn't even dispute the fact that high capacity magazines can be rigged at home and instead argued the ease of obtaining them from the black market, you can't argue with the fact that a proficient gunman is better than an inexperienced one, and you didn't deny the fact that limiting a citizens personal collection of firearms would be a pointless gesture should they decide to go on a shooting spree since they can only carry a limited amount with them. 
All things that clearly show the flaws in your arguments.


I honestly wouldn't mind psychological evaluations being implemented as a requirement to own firearms, and I would greatly approve of mandatory safety training, but please don't make it seem as if this is going to have a large impact upon gun crime, because it won't, incomplete list or no.


----------



## Mider T (Dec 17, 2012)

Tsukiyomi said:


> Your neighbor can be growing weed in their back yard, hardly the same thing as finding a hookup for illegal weaponry.



Stop being cute, most people have a supplier as with most drugs.  You obviously know little about pot to think somebody would just be glowing it in their backyard.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Dec 17, 2012)

Mider T said:


> Stop being cute, most people have a supplier as with most drugs.  You obviously know little about pot to think somebody would just be glowing it in their backyard.



Really, who is your black market weapon supplier?  Find them in a local yellow pages did you?

You make it sound like there are illegal weapons dealers on every street corner.


----------



## Mider T (Dec 17, 2012)

No, you just do everything on the books so its hard for you to understand.


----------



## Bender (Dec 17, 2012)

Tsukiyomi said:


> Your neighbor can be growing weed in their back yard, hardly the same thing as finding a hookup for illegal weaponry.



Exactly.

Mider your logic of saying, "Ohh people are going to get ahold of it anyway so why bother banning them?" is grade-A defeatist baloney.


----------



## Stygian (Dec 17, 2012)

Bender said:


> Exactly.
> 
> Mider your logic of saying, "Ohh people are going to get ahold of it anyway so why bother banning them?" is grade-A defeatist baloney.



But it's not defeatism, it's pure logic.
They will always be readily available to anyone who has the tenacity to find them on the black market. If someone is going to perform a mass shooting, they most likely won't mind going through the trouble of obtaining some from an illegal source, it just might take slightly longer.
Even if banning them did work, I've already said that they can be MADE AT HOME.
So why not find a BETTER way to deal with these problems, rather than implementing something that can easily be gotten around?

You could be brainstorming for other actually good ideas during the time you will have wasted going through the hoops of implementing a useless law.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Dec 17, 2012)

Mider T said:


> No, you just do everything on the books so its hard for you to understand.



There is a VAST difference between sneaking around and selling a ground up plant and selling devices capable of mass murder.  Its significantly more difficult to obtain, store and transfer weaponry.  Not to mention the great degree of added security you need to ensure someone doesn't just turn your own product on you.

Its completely insane for you to put those two things on the same level.


----------



## Mintaka (Dec 17, 2012)

Freedan said:


> Right. So because stupidity is the root cause, let's not take the tools that enable them to act on their stupidity.
> 
> Seriously, if you know people are going to act crazy, don't empower them with tools of death. That's simply common sense.


There are all sorts of mundane objects that a determined and twisted individual can turn into tools of death.

Should we ban any and everything somebody can use to kill another with?


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Dec 17, 2012)

Mintaka said:


> There are all sorts of mundane objects that a determined and twisted individual can turn into tools of death.
> 
> Should we ban any and everything somebody can use to kill another with?



A gun's primary purpose is to kill, you don't think that warrants treating different than a table clothe which you _could_ kill someone with if you were really determined but that has a totally harmless primary purpose?  Those two things should be treated exactly the same?


----------



## Stygian (Dec 17, 2012)

Tsukiyomi said:


> A gun's primary purpose is to kill, you don't think that warrants treating different than a table clothe which you _could_ kill someone with if you were really determined but that has a totally harmless primary purpose?  Those two things should be treated exactly the same?



Of course they shouldn't be treated the same.
But they also have legitimate purposes other than killing.
Treating firearms as death machines of pure evil isn't the way to go about it.


----------



## Blitz66 (Dec 17, 2012)

I think the greatest thing about this bill is how it would do nothing to prevent an event identical to the one it is a response to.

The Newport attack was conducted with handguns, so obviously assault rifles are the problem.


----------



## Bender (Dec 17, 2012)

Stygian said:


> But it's not defeatism, it's pure logic.
> They will always be readily available to anyone who has the tenacity to find them on the black market. If someone is going to perform a mass shooting, they most likely won't mind going through the trouble of obtaining some from an illegal source, it just might take slightly longer.



What are you on? If people are getting guns it's obvious that those sources that provided them will be cracked down on. Merely saying,"durr because they'll still get 'em" is inane. The number of people getting heavy firearms will significantly ridiculously drop if they're banned. To find those underground places it's obvious they'll be able to be traced by looking at a persons credit card history and diligently looking into information on the groups distributing the firearms.


----------



## Stygian (Dec 17, 2012)

Bender said:


> What are you on? If people are getting guns it's obvious that those sources that provided them will be cracked down on. Merely saying,"durr because they'll still get 'em" is inane. The number of people getting heavy firearms will significantly ridiculously drop if they're banned.



Really? How's that working out for Californians? Lmao.



> To find those underground places it's obvious they'll be able to be traced by looking at a persons credit card history and diligently looking into information on the groups distributing the firearms.



Are you sure I'm the one who's on something?
You must be a supremely naive child if you think that black market dealers use MOTHER FUCKING CREDIT CARDS FOR THEIR WEAPONS TRANSACTIONS.
Holy hell, I don't even know what to say to that except that you need to think out the shit you say. Wow.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Dec 17, 2012)

Stygian said:


> *Of course they shouldn't be treated the same.*
> But they also have legitimate purposes other than killing.
> Treating firearms as death machines of pure evil isn't the way to go about it.



So you admit they shouldn't be treated the same then complain when we treat them different?


----------



## Stygian (Dec 17, 2012)

Tsukiyomi said:


> So you admit they shouldn't be treated the same then complain when we treat them different?



Nice strawman attempt, but that's not quite it.
They have to be treated differently from other instruments, obviously.
What I take issue with is the ways in which you think you can lessen gun crime by creating bogus legislature.


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Dec 17, 2012)

Stygian said:


> Treating firearms as death machines of pure evil isn't the way to go about it.



Weren't sharks treated the same way once upon a time?


----------



## Stygian (Dec 17, 2012)

Yami Munesanzun said:


> Weren't sharks treated the same way once upon a time?



I do believe you are correct. Lol


----------



## Bender (Dec 17, 2012)

Stygian said:


> Really? How's that working out for Californians? Lmao.



Here's a better exampleanda
They have a fairly balance system and we hardly see incidents relating to gun violence. Same with other countries. 

Here's an example of why your gun-loving is bullshit:

From Gun-control thread:



> Beijing - Guy attacks children with a knife, 22 injured, no deaths




Not only should "American" be written as the definition of Trigger-happy in the dictionary but stupid. All this blood and you think trying to outlaw guns is futile and it makes our country a "polite and safe" is the most idiotic shit I've logic I've seen. 

Words cannot describe how thoroughly disgusted I am by the mentality of people in this country. 




> Are you sure I'm the one who's on something?
> You must be a supremely naive child if you think that black market dealers use MOTHER FUCKING CREDIT CARDS FOR THEIR WEAPONS TRANSACTIONS.
> Holy hell, I don't even know what to say to that except that you need to think out the shit you say. Wow.



The whole credit cards shit, was an *example*, boy.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Dec 17, 2012)

I can understand the person who doesn't think guns in their entirety should be banned. I don't understand the person who is against anti gun safety and regulations towards ludicrous weapons like automatic rifles, and military grade weaponry. Hunting, and self defense are not on the list for these kinds of weapons.

It is asking for trouble, these kinds of folks should not be wondering why these sort of tragedies happen when an insane person gets hold of them.

Especially in the southern states, you can go into a walmart and pick up an assault rifle with only so much as a driver's license. That is insane.


----------



## Mider T (Dec 17, 2012)

Bender said:


> Exactly.
> 
> Mider your logic of saying, "Ohh people are going to get ahold of it anyway so why bother banning them?" is grade-A defeatist baloney.



You're an idiot who doesn't even know what he's advocating, yesterday you were just saying you weren't pushing for banning gums.  Moron.


----------



## Bender (Dec 17, 2012)

Mider T said:


> You're an idiot



Nice flame



> who doesn't even know what he's advocating



Right...  I'm saying either restrict or ban them entirely and yet the overall base on my stance is do something about the current policy. You are so right I totally don't know what I'm advocating.



> , yesterday you were just saying you weren't pushing for *banning gums*.



I didn't know gum killed people. 



> Moron.



And flame number two. 

Just because you're frustrated about not being able to read my posts doesn't mean you should take it out on me.


----------



## Mider T (Dec 17, 2012)

Once again, you're not advocating shit, your just causing a ruckus about things you don't understand, as usual.  Of course you don't have a solution to problems you know nothing about.


----------



## Mizura (Dec 17, 2012)

About firearm regulations: nah, it won't prevent the most dedicated, obsessed people from getting firearms.

However, it will make it:
- Much harder to get for the lazy shut-ins who happen to get a screw loose one day.
- Much, much more expensive too. Price goes up, demand goes down.


----------



## Mintaka (Dec 17, 2012)

Tsukiyomi said:


> A gun's primary purpose is to kill, you don't think that warrants treating different than a table clothe which you _could_ kill someone with if you were really determined but that has a totally harmless primary purpose?  Those two things should be treated exactly the same?


Of course it does, I'm saying however that it seemed the point they were making was to broad and carries a nasty repercussion, and IMO misses the real issue here.


My point is simply this, a deranged murderer is eventually going to find a way to kill you and or others.  Taking away the obvious choices doesn't get rid of the problem and merely means they'll move onto something more exotic.  The problem itself also needs to be addressed here not just a symptom of the problem.

The problem being disturbed people like this.  Otherwise what are we going to be banning next?  Crossbows?  Bow and arrows?  Knives?  Any other weapons?  Not to mention the whole host of chemical and mundane everyday objects one can use to kill another with.

If we truly want this problem to stop, banning guns won't completely solve it.  It will merely slow and or delay the inevitable until some other twisted fuck finds another nasty way to pull something like this off.  We need to do something about the twisted deranged people in this case, or else the problem will NEVER go away it will just change form.


----------



## Bender (Dec 17, 2012)

@Mider T

Yeah you keep thinking that



> If we truly want this problem to stop, banning guns won't completely solve it. It will merely slow and or delay the inevitable until some other twisted fuck finds another nasty way to pull something like this off. We need to do something about the twisted deranged people in this case, or else the problem will NEVER go away it will just change form.



Tell that to Beijing, chief.


----------



## Sanity Check (Dec 17, 2012)

Assault weapons are involved in a small fraction of shootings.

If 80% of public shootings involve handguns (often obtained illegally) what difference will imposing stricter assault weapon bans will make?

.

Just another waste of tax dollars and politicians moving extremely fast when they can deprive americans of rights...  Whilst they move extremely slow on defending rights on issues like gay marriage.


----------



## Mider T (Dec 17, 2012)

Bender said:


> @Mider T
> 
> Yeah you keep thinking that
> 
> ...



Yeah and you continue to dodge the question, as usual.


----------



## Mintaka (Dec 17, 2012)

> Tell that to Beijing, chief.


Doesn't this kind of proove my point?


----------



## Bender (Dec 17, 2012)

@Mintaka

you're kind of misunderstanding

Even if we banned guns and limited to incidents in which mass assaults are committed with knives  at the very least there'll be no fatalities.


----------



## Mintaka (Dec 17, 2012)

Knives aren't the only weapon available though.


----------



## Bender (Dec 17, 2012)

@Mintaka

I'm too tired to think up the others. By all means please tell me the others weapons available.


----------



## SubtleObscurantist (Dec 17, 2012)

China wasn't so lucky in August. Or in the knifing spree a couple years ago.

Bombs, of course, remain the weapon of choice for all the highest casualty attacks by nutjobs.


----------



## Stygian (Dec 17, 2012)

Bender said:


> Here's a better exampleanda
> They have a fairly balance system and we hardly see incidents relating to gun violence. Same with other countries.
> 
> Here's an example of why your gun-loving is bullshit:
> ...



Comparing two different countries with each other, despite differences in economic situations, ideals, populations, criminal activity, and proximity to a major hot-zone for large scale criminal activity?
Cool.
Hey see the number of deaths for Switzerland on that picture? It's at 34.
34 Despite having what is most likely even MORE lax gun laws than the United States.
So why is it that they have such a low gun death rate compared to us?

Comparing the two despite the different situations is ridiculous.






> Not only should "American" be written as the definition of Trigger-happy in the dictionary but stupid. All this blood and you think trying to outlaw guns is futile and it makes our country a "polite and safe" is the most idiotic shit I've logic I've seen.
> 
> Words cannot describe how thoroughly disgusted I am by the mentality of people in this country.



Nice job putting words in my mouth, buddy.
It's not my fault that you're stooped so far into your own deluded view of the world that you can't even realize the lunacy of your own assertions.
Can you even put forth any logical and effective solutions to curbing gun crime? Of course not. You are vehemently arguing that something should be done yet you yourself have no clue how to deal with the situation, do you?

By all means, prove me wrong and throw some ideas at me. And I don't mean the foolish ones that I've already shot down.






> The whole credit cards shit, was an *example*, boy.



And example of what? Your childish naivety and lack of any comprehension of the issue? If that's what you were going for, then you certainly made a believer out of me; but I think your just trying to save face after putting your foot into your mouth, boy. Lol


----------



## Stygian (Dec 17, 2012)

Does anyone even realize the fact that you can build your own gun in your home, out of easily obtainable materials?
How do you intend to deal with that?


----------



## Bender (Dec 17, 2012)

@Stygian

The number of deaths for Americans is in the THOUSANDS. *THOUSANDS*. Is that really so hard to understand?

Also I know exactly the proper solution, don't talk to me like I don't know what the fuck I'm for. It's either we should make restrictions on all heavy assault rifles, and such as well as only allow pistols for civilians. The second option is ban pistols entirely and allow them for US army men and law enforcement. 

It's not even a matter of me not knowing the solutions it's you vehemently denying them and coming with some asinine retort that "banning guns/restricting guns will make no difference". We won't know if we'll try.  Just standing around doing nothing is pathetic fucking shit.


EDIT: 

Build your own fucking gun? What so you've done it before?  Has there been a abnormal number of people that have done such a thing?


----------



## Blitz66 (Dec 17, 2012)

Stygian said:


> Does anyone even realize the fact that you can build your own gun in your home, out of easily obtainable materials?
> How do you intend to deal with that?



The same way they deal with explosives being available at the hardware store, and even more powerful explosives being easily mixed with recipes available online.

They don't.  They don't care.  The objective is to disarm the citizenry.  Protecting us is a secondary concern, at best.  Enabling us to protect ourselves is right out.  Not even an issue.  Because law enforcement can get there within 23 minutes of a call a good half the time, and therefore is all the protection you need.


----------



## Blitz66 (Dec 17, 2012)

Bender said:


> Build your own fucking gun? What so you've done it before?  Has there been a abnormal number of people that have done such a thing?



I never have, but I have all the required tools and materials, and the Internet.  If there is a ban on any sort of weapon, the government will have provided me, or anyone else with a reasonably equipped shop, with one of the most profitable careers in history.


----------



## Mintaka (Dec 17, 2012)

Bender said:


> EDIT:
> 
> Build your own fucking gun? What so you've done it before?  Has there been a abnormal number of people that have done such a thing?


Sadly there are ways to do so on youtube of all places.

As for what else,

There are also small crossbows on the market.  Poisoning the bolts with something fast acting and lethal  would easily allow you to kill a number of people fairly quickly.  This  would most likely be the easiest and most effective method.  Furthermore it might be more cruel since said deaths might be agonizing as well.

A small midevil style mace that you could conceal in a backpack would probably be heavy enough to bash children's skulls in.  You can get those and other nasty mid evil weapons from Renaissance fairs and from Collectors.

It really depends on how clever you are, how crazy you are, how determined you are, and what's available.

I could go on, but frankly I'm beginning to creep myself out.


----------



## Stygian (Dec 17, 2012)

Bender said:


> @Stygian
> 
> The number of deaths for Americans is in the THOUSANDS. *THOUSANDS*. Is that really so hard to understand?



No shit it's in the thousands. Here's a though though, buddy, why don't we search for and fix the ROOT PROBLEM of why it's in the thousands to begin with, instead of looking at the objects used?
Guns aren't the PROBLEM, they don't CAUSE people to want to kill others, they're simply what's used to DO IT. Is that really so hard to understand?

I've already given you Switzerland as an example of a country with just even more lax gun laws, yet a gun crime rate that's EXTREMELY low. What problem do we have here that's causing people to murder the shit out of each other that THEY don't have over there?
That's the question that needs answered, bro.



> Also I know exactly the proper solution, don't talk to me like I don't know what the fuck I'm for. It's either we should make restrictions on all heavy assault rifles, and such as well as only allow pistols for civilians. The second option is ban pistols entirely and allow them for US army men and law enforcement.



Clearly you don't, as you've repeatedly demonstrated with each post you make.
Please define for us what a "HEAVY ASSAULT RIFLE" is, bro; or are you just pulling random scary sounding terms straight out of your ass?

Most gun crime isn't even committed with your so called "HEAVY ASSAULT RIFLES"; they're committed with low caliber pistols, as I've already stated. Why don't you learn some facts before trying to make assertions of what the best course of action is?

How is banning all pistols going to FIX IT, bro? Is the government going to bust through the door of ever single law-abiding civilian and criminal alike, and confiscate all pistols that they have? Do you really that's something that can't be gotten around, let alone even POSSIBLE TO DO?
Or do you think that all of the criminals are just going to walk down to the nearest police station and hand them over?

TELL ME HOW IT'S GOING TO WORK.



> It's not even a matter of me not knowing the solutions it's you vehemently denying them and coming with some asinine retort that "banning guns/restricting guns will make no difference". We won't know if we'll try.  Just standing around doing nothing is pathetic fucking shit.



Some asinine retort? If my retorts are so asinine, then why can't you even formulate any sort of logical response to them? Seriously. You can't even offer a rebuttal yet you call my statements asinine and try your hand at constructing a strawman, really?




> EDIT:
> 
> Build your own fucking gun? What so you've done it before?  Has there been a abnormal number of people that have done such a thing?



Of course I haven't done it; but it is completely possible to do. With a simple Google search any random jerk-off can get instructions on how to build a simple zip gun.
There hasn't, because it isn't worth making one unless you're in a pinch, it is still deadly however and has been used in criminal activity in the past.


----------



## SubtleObscurantist (Dec 17, 2012)

Once you actually know how to assemble and dissemble a firearm for cleaning, . When I lived in NYC, there was a whole underground club devoted to this to bypass the essential impossibility of acquiring a firearm there. They ignored the instructions on the video, of course, and sold them to customers. A friend's roommate had an MP5 (full auto) stored in his apartment. From my understanding, they were beginning to make their own parts as well.


----------



## Bender (Dec 17, 2012)

We're trying to lessen the death rate from firearms and number of times this tragedy occurs. There is no spoken guarantee that this is a permanent solution. However, better to have a solution than to be stuck in a rut on how to prevent tragedies like the one in Newton from happening again you guys. So in other words: I really don't give a darn if you say you can "build" your little firearms. We're still going to either restrict or ban them entirely. Stop trying to BS away people suggestion for solutions to this problem.


----------



## Sanity Check (Dec 17, 2012)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> Assault weapons are involved in a small fraction of shootings.
> 
> If 80% of public shootings involve handguns (often obtained illegally) what difference will imposing stricter assault weapon bans will make?
> 
> ...



.

The above post ↑ begs a response.


----------



## SubtleObscurantist (Dec 17, 2012)

Bender said:


> We're still going to either restrict or ban them entirely.



You and _what_ army?

In all seriousness. What almighty "we" is going to completely reshape the United States?


----------



## Stygian (Dec 17, 2012)

Bender said:


> We're trying to lessen the death rate from firearms and number of times this tragedy occurs. There is no spoken guarantee that this is a permanent solution. However, better to have a solution than to be stuck in a rut on how to prevent tragedies like the one in Newton from happening again you guys. So in other words: I really don't give a darn if you say you can "build" your little firearms. We're still going to either restrict or ban them entirely. Stop trying to BS away people suggestion for solutions to this problem.



And if it worsens the problem, are you willing to accept the consequences of what YOU have helped cause? Are you just going to leave it that way if it does and stick with your delusions that it will eventually work, or would you advocate to reverse it?
Are the politicians going to be willing to reverse it if it turns out that giving up your rights WASN'T the best course of action?
It's EASY to give away your rights, bro, but it's DIFFICULT to get them back.

You're the only one BS'ing away what you're being told. You're vision of reality is warped and skewed, and you refuse to even attempt to put an argument on the table.

The country will never ban guns and it will never restrict them as heavily as you are advocating. You're deluded.


----------



## Bender (Dec 17, 2012)

Stygian said:


> No shit it's in the thousands. Here's a though though, buddy, why don't we search for and fix the ROOT PROBLEM of why it's in the thousands to begin with, instead of looking at the objects used?
> Guns aren't the PROBLEM, they don't CAUSE people to want to kill others, they're simply what's used to DO IT. Is that really so hard to understand?
> 
> I've already given you Switzerland as an example of a country with just even more lax gun laws, yet a gun crime rate that's EXTREMELY low. What problem do we have here that's causing people to murder the shit out of each other that THEY don't have over there?
> That's the question that needs answered, bro.



Mentally ill fucks are the cause and are the third option to take care of the problem as well. 



> Clearly you don't, as you've repeatedly demonstrated with each post you make.
> Please define for us what a "HEAVY ASSAULT RIFLE" is, bro; or are you just pulling random scary sounding terms straight out of your ass?



Shotguns, semi-automatics the works. Ones used by the Aurora shooter, and the Newton fucker.



> How is banning all pistols going to FIX IT, bro? Is the government going to bust through the door of ever single law-abiding civilian and criminal alike, and confiscate all pistols that they have? Do you really that's something that can't be gotten around, let alone even POSSIBLE TO DO?
> Or do you think that all of the criminals are just going to walk down to the nearest police station and hand them over?



Any guns that aren't your average pistol should be banned. People who want them should have a mental evaluation undergone, and criminal history involving assault and such checked for.




> Some asinine retort? If my retorts are so asinine, then why can't you even formulate any sort of logical response to them? Seriously. You can't even offer a rebuttal yet you call my statements asinine and try your hand at constructing a strawman, really?



Oh and you're the one offering good retorts to perfect solutions?



> Of course I haven't done it; but it is completely possible to do. With a simple Google search any random jerk-off can get instructions on how to build a simple zip gun.



That doesn't mean we shouldn't go through with it. Your mundane defeatist logic is BS at its finest.

Citizens can own hunting guns and handguns should they prove responsible to to so. No one is responsible enough to own private weapons bunkers. Society has an obligation to protect its citizens and removing these guns is a first baby step in the right direction. Enough of you defending Americans love affair with guns.


----------



## Blitz66 (Dec 18, 2012)

Bender said:


> We're trying to lessen the death rate from firearms and number of times this tragedy occurs. There is no spoken guarantee that this is a permanent solution. However, better to have a solution than to be stuck in a rut on how to prevent tragedies like the one in Newton from happening again you guys. So in other words: I really don't give a darn if you say you can "build" your little firearms. We're still going to either restrict or ban them entirely. Stop trying to BS away people suggestion for solutions to this problem.



No amount of regulation is going to solve the problem.  We've got tons of regulation anyway.  Nobody enforces it.  Why is new regulation going to be any better?

Then, there's the fact that almost never are legally acquired guns the problem.  In the case of this particular shooting, the shooter killed the owner of the guns and stole them.  How are you going to restrict his access to guns effectively?

Then there's the fact that all these tragedies happen in locations where firearms are strictly prohibited.  This is a pattern throughout the United States.  In places that permit qualified, trained people to carry firearms, deaths from firearms swiftly decline.  Gun crime becomes less appealing when there is a chance that your victim might be able to fire back, apparently.

I do notice that the picture says "deaths from handguns."  How many cases of self-defense figure into that, do you think?  How many suicides, that would've simply used another method without the option of a gun?  All of them that are available, I'm guessing.  That's how the numbers tend to be used, when someone is trying to make a point.

Don't get me wrong.  We do still have a problem with violence in the US.  However, guns are not the cause, and banning guns not the solution.


----------



## SubtleObscurantist (Dec 18, 2012)

Your average handgun is a semi-automatic. And hunters very commonly use shotguns (and they have never been defined as an "assault weapon before to my knowledge).


----------



## Bender (Dec 18, 2012)

> You're the only one BS'ing away what you're being told. You're vision of reality is warped and skewed, and you refuse to even attempt to put an argument on the table.



I'm the one with the warped and skewed vision of reality? You think that our forefathers would want shit to go this far? Get this through your thick skull: the arms they had back then were primitives works of craftsmanship. Single shot motherfucking pistols. They were used in duels and they also had the bayonets shit which they used to wage war. The number of guns we have is simply absurd. Plus, this was back in the day when they would do duels (which Andrew Jackson the 7th president the most outspoken admirer of the tradition) to challenge someone who has offended them. If someone ever did any murders of sorts they could be easily thwarted. The ones with semi-automatics, and other types (excluding hangun firearms) is ridiculous. 




> The country will never ban guns and it will never restrict them as heavily as you are advocating. You're deluded.




CHILDREN were killed in this incident. If you honestly think that we're turning a blind eye to this shit you're one who is deluded. To say that leave it "be" and implying oh gun violence is some endless cycle is a weakling argument.




Stygian said:


> It's EASY to give away your rights, bro, but it's DIFFICULT to get them back.



The ones behind the the original "bear arms" had in mind single fucking pistols. NOT SEMI-Automatics, Goddamn shotguns, or any other crazy types. You really think it's alright I wonder if you'll be singing the same tune when someone you know gets capped by some loony like the the Sandy shooter.

EDIT: Your average firearm I'm talking about is the fire and reload pistol.


----------



## Blitz66 (Dec 18, 2012)

Bender said:


> The ones behind the the original "bear arms" had in mind single fucking pistols. NOT SEMI-Automatics, Goddamn shotguns, or any other crazy types. You really think it's alright I wonder if you'll be singing the same tune when someone you know gets capped by some loony like the the Sandy shooter.
> 
> EDIT: Your average firearm I'm talking about is the fire and reload pistol.



'The ones behind the original "bear arms"' had in mind whatever the military at the time has, because the Second Amendment is in place to allow the people to protect themselves from government oppression.


----------



## SubtleObscurantist (Dec 18, 2012)

Only pistols existed at the time of the American War of Independence? Wow...

This is new.


----------



## Bender (Dec 18, 2012)

Blitz66 said:


> because the Second Amendment is in place to allow the people to protect themselves from government oppression.



1. Our government is not the same as Germany when went ridiculously batshit and Hitler came into the picture

2. No matter what the fuck happens we're screwed once our government turns into a dictatorship. They have more resources then we do and more powerful than us.


----------



## Stygian (Dec 18, 2012)

Bender said:


> Mentally ill fucks are the cause and are the third option to take care of the problem as well.



Okay, so why don't you concentrate on trying to get help for them BEFORE they snap?
Wouldn't that make MORE SENSE than getting rid of peoples rights and leaving the "mentally ill fucks" to find a different way to murder dozens of people?
What happens when they move on to explosives after you 'magically remove all guns from the country'? Do you realize how easy it is for a nutjob to make himself a pipe bomb?





> Shotguns, semi-automatics the works. Ones used by the Aurora shooter, and the Newton fucker.



These are your "heavy assault weapons", bro? Really? There is no such thing as an assault weapon, it's just a liberal buzzword that people like you use to get an emotional reaction out of ignorant people.

All pistols are semiautomatics, and shotguns have legitimate sporting and hunting purposes. We should just get rid of the TENS OF MILLIONS of semi-automatic firearms and shotguns in America?
You've yet to explain to me HOW WE GO ABOUT GETTING RID OF THEM.
Do you expect to ban them and then they all just disappear?





> Any guns that aren't your average pistol should be banned. People who want them should have a mental evaluation undergone, and criminal history involving assault and such checked for.



Really? How will people hunt with just the average pistol? Are they going to go out in the woods with a 9mm semiautomatic and just start shooting at deer from less than 100ft away?
How are you going to ban all guns except your "average pistol" -whatever that it-, without going through the Second Amendment? Are the politicians just going to say "hey fuck it" and ban them anyway?
No. You'd have to pass a new amendment to it, which WILL NOT HAPPEN.

Again, you're delusional.






> Oh and you're the one offering good retorts to perfect solutions?



Apparently, since you don't seem to be able to respond to them.





> That doesn't mean we shouldn't go through with it. Your mundane defeatist logic is BS at its finest.
> 
> Citizens can own hunting guns and handguns should they prove responsible to to so. No one is responsible enough to own private weapons bunkers. Society has an obligation to protect its citizens and removing these guns is a first baby step in the right direction. Enough of you defending Americans love affair with guns.



You just said that we should ban all guns except the "average pistol"; now it's hunting guns and handguns? You have no consistency, bro.

You're liberal logic is BS at its finest, and is very tiring.
Have you even TOUCHED a gun before? How about even seen one in person, outside of a video game?


----------



## Blitz66 (Dec 18, 2012)

Bender said:


> 1. Our government is not the same as Germany when went ridiculously batshit and Hitler came into the picture
> 
> 2. No matter what the fuck happens we're screwed once our government turns into a dictatorship. They have more resources then we do and more powerful than us.



Dude, I'm a soldier.  I AM the government.  If the people started resisting government tyranny, and I was ordered to move on them, I'd declare "unlawful order" and take it up the chain of command until I found someone who agreed with me.  Bet I wouldn't have to go very far.  90% of the military is of a similar mindset.

As for point number 1...  You may have heard of this thing called the "Revolutionary War."  See, we didn't like how the Brits were treating us, so we resisted.  The guys putting together the new government wanted to ensure that the American people would ALWAYS have that option, if our government ever got too grabby.  Oh, and we were outmanned and outgunned then, too.


----------



## Mintaka (Dec 18, 2012)

SubtleObscurantist said:


> Only pistols existed at the time of the American War of Independence? Wow...
> 
> This is new.


I never knew muskets were a type of pistol...


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Dec 18, 2012)

Mintaka said:


> I never knew muskets were a type of pistol...


Sure it is, it's a long rifle like pistol.


----------



## Shoddragon (Dec 18, 2012)

no offense but this thread has some of the most misinformed garbage I've ever read and that says a lot. Banning guns won't stop violent crimes because guns aren't the problem, they aren't even remotely the problem. if someone is disturbed enough they'll still find some way to harm others as you can turn almost anything you can find into a weapon.

what you SHOULD be focusing on is the real problem and that is people. all of this rests in psychology.  crying and moaning that "ERH MA GER GUNS SHOULD BE BANNED" is just as fucking stupid as those people who think everyone should be allowed to have weapons including little kids or very young adults ( I'm talking like 15 years old). you aren't stopping the problem and you're just dancing around that real issue.


This is just like the whole marijuana issue. Ban it as much as you like but people are still going to find it anyway. Same thing with guns, even in incidents unrelated to this think of gangs, do you think gangs get all of their guns legally?

actually, banning guns would mean large organized crime in the united states now has a new, fresh market to take advantage of: illegal gun smuggling.

Guess who is going to be getting all of these new weapons? NOT THE CIVILIANS WHO FUCKING NEED THEM TO DEFEND THEMSELVES.

What I propose are mass collaborations of research because a lot of the time these people who go out and start shooting have psychological issues and sometimes are even taking psychological medication.  Wanna REALLY help curb these kinds of violent acts from occurring? don't sit here being retarded blaming "not strict enough" gun laws,  get together and help petition the government to step up its game and start helping organize nation wide research into the link between different prescribed drugs/ certain psychological conditions and disasters like this.

as an example, this petition is a great way to start:


----------



## Bender (Dec 18, 2012)

@Stygian

No, I'm saying the ownership a gun owner should be allowed to carry is a handgun pistol and a hunting gun. That and nothing more than that. The rest should be taken away. The people who currently own them may as well be allowed to keep them but have to have a psychiatric evaluation to see if they're deemed suitable to keep them. 

My consistency is down because I'm tired and it's pretty late. 

My stated stance on if it's too difficult to ban firearms entirely is limit it only to firearm handgun and a hunting rifle any others go. And people who currently have all the heavy stuff must submit to psychiatric evaluation and give papers of the people in the house who have them so they know whether or not an incident like with the Sandy Hook shooter will occur. Either it's that or there should be a lock-up place in residential areas for guns so parents won't have their kids steal their guns.

Also touched a gun? Yes, I have and I fired one too. It's an awful feeling knowing you have a weapon like that in your possession. 

I'm done for tonight.


----------



## Stygian (Dec 18, 2012)

Bender said:


> I'm the one with the warped and skewed vision of reality? You think that our forefathers would want shit to go this far? Get this through your thick skull: the arms they had back then were primitives works of craftsmanship. Single shot motherfucking pistols. They were used in duels and they also had the bayonets shit which they used to wage war. The number of guns we have is simply absurd. Plus, this was back in the day when they would do duels (which Andrew Jackson the 7th president the most outspoken admirer of the tradition) to challenge someone who has offended them. If someone ever did any murders of sorts they could be easily thwarted. The ones with semi-automatics, and other types (excluding hangun firearms) is ridiculous.



"Herp derp primitive, herp derp, single shot, herp derp duels".

That's you're response? Do you know what the 2nd Amendment was created for, you dense buffoon? To fight back against a government that has become tyrannical.
They knew that the passage of time would lead to increases in the technology of firearms; the point was to ensure that the citizens would be well enough equipped to stand a chance against a massive government force if we were forced to. Didn't you take history class, or did you just sleep through it?





> CHILDREN were killed in this incident. If you honestly think that we're turning a blind eye to this shit you're one who is deluded. To say that leave it "be" and implying oh gun violence is some endless cycle is a weakling argument.



Children have been killed in incidents before. Did that magically lead to an instaban on firearms? Nope.
You're just using it as ammunition to further your political agenda (no pun intended) which is just as disgusting.
I'm not saying to leave it be, but of course you've fooled yourself into thinking I have. I've already said that I'd accept measures like mandatory safety training for firearm owners and psychological evaluations.
You're just pushing ridiculous nonsense based on your emotional reaction to a tragedy.





> The ones behind the the original "bear arms" had in mind single fucking pistols. NOT SEMI-Automatics, Goddamn shotguns, or any other crazy types. You really think it's alright I wonder if you'll be singing the same tune when someone you know gets capped by some loony like the the Sandy shooter.
> 
> EDIT: Your average firearm I'm talking about is the fire and reload pistol.



Oh, is that right; They wanted us to just have pistols, eh? They why didn't they write that in it? They could have easily said that, but they didn't. I think that pretty clearly illustrates their view on the issue. 
I love how you're also pushing ME to have an emotional reaction to it. What a foolish and childish tactic.

I don't even think you're reading what you post at this point. You couldn't be.


----------



## Stygian (Dec 18, 2012)

Shoddragon said:


> no offense but this thread has some of the most misinformed garbage I've ever read and that says a lot. Banning guns won't stop violent crimes because guns aren't the problem, they aren't even remotely the problem. if someone is disturbed enough they'll still find some way to harm others as you can turn almost anything you can find into a weapon.
> 
> what you SHOULD be focusing on is the real problem and that is people. all of this rests in psychology.  crying and moaning that "ERH MA GER GUNS SHOULD BE BANNED" is just as fucking stupid as those people who think everyone should be allowed to have weapons including little kids or very young adults ( I'm talking like 15 years old). you aren't stopping the problem and you're just dancing around that real issue.
> 
> ...



Tell 'em Shoddy.


----------



## Mider T (Dec 18, 2012)

Bender said:


> @Stygian
> 
> No, I'm saying the ownership a gun owner should be allowed to carry is a handgun pistol and a hunting gun. That and nothing more than that. The rest should be taken away.



Just stop right there.  Nobody's getting their guns taken away.  



> Also touched a gun? Yes, I have and I fired one too. It's an awful feeling knowing you have a weapon like that in your possession.



You firing one time as a kid because your dad wanted to show you doesn't give you that much credibility, just a sliver more than Inuhanyou.  And for some reason, I don't think it was such an awful feeling before last week.


----------



## Stygian (Dec 18, 2012)

Bender said:


> @Stygian
> 
> No, I'm saying the ownership a gun owner should be allowed to carry is a handgun pistol and a hunting gun. That and nothing more than that. The rest should be taken away. The people who currently own them may as well be allowed to keep them but have to have a psychiatric evaluation to see if they're deemed suitable to keep them.



That is ridiculous.
WHO IS GOING TO TAKE THEM AWAY? Who is going to enforce these fantastical laws of yours and how are they going to pull it off?
How are you going to get them out of the hands of the criminals?

Your posts raises more questions than it answers!




> My stated stance on if it's too difficult to ban firearms entirely is limit it only to firearm handgun and a hunting rifle any others go. And people who currently have all the heavy stuff must submit to psychiatric evaluation and give papers of the people in the house who have them so they know whether or not an incident like with the Sandy Hook shooter will occur. Either it's that or there should be a lock-up place in residential areas for guns so parents won't have their kids steal their guns.



BUT YOU CAN'T LIMIT IT! What don't you grasp about that? The criminals are not going to lose their guns, the law abiding citizens are!
A lock up for a residential neighborhood to store their guns? That's fucking ridiculous! How will people protect their homes?
Why don't they just get a fucking gunsafe to put in their house; that's such an easy solution instead of this whackjob shit you are proposing.




> Also touched a gun? Yes, I have and I fired one too. It's an awful feeling knowing you have a weapon like that in your possession.



OH. MY. GOD.
It's like your testicles shriveled up and fell off. Are you even a man, or are you full on sterotypically gay?

It's ironic that you yourself are one of these people who you claim are mentally unfit to handle a firearm. If these psychological tests were ever implemented, you'd never pass them.


----------



## Waking Dreamer (Dec 18, 2012)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Then the problem isn't the guns, *the problem is that a lot of Americans are fucking idiots.* This is proven by their aversion to health care reform, they're hatred of other races and their listening to half of the stuff Republicans say.



You think its easier to reduce the amount of fucking idiots in America...than it is to reduce the access of high capacity clips/magazines or amount of guns per person to the average American citizen?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Dec 18, 2012)

Waking Dreamer said:


> You think its easier to reduce the amount of fucking idiots in American...than it is to reduce the access of guns?


We could shoot them, I mean we've got the guns for it.


----------



## Stygian (Dec 18, 2012)

Waking Dreamer said:


> You think its easier to reduce the amount of fucking idiots in American...than it is to reduce the access of guns?



It WOULD be easier, if more money was spent on education instead of pouring so much of it into the military.


----------



## Waking Dreamer (Dec 18, 2012)

Stygian said:


> It WOULD be easier, if more money was spent on education instead of pouring so much of it into the military.



How do you educate a mother who taught her son how to shoot 4 types of guns as a bonding activity, that she shouldnt have because he was mentally unstable?

She followed all the current laws and obtained her firearms legally. How does the government determine she was better off to not have been given the guns and that a teacher (a reasonable profession) would have died by her own firearm by her own family, with whom she taught how to shoot?

How does the government make laws / regulations / educational programs to stop that from happening?

Can you actually do that? Can you stop the average person from doing the most stupid/tragic of things?

People will always do stupid things wont they? 

How can you predict what an individual will do in a mass populace already full of problems? Education wont guarantee better usage of guns by everyone, you're giving them benefit of the doubt that they will even listen in the first place.

Aren't you being too optimistic that a diverse population as America can change for the better with just their attitude and thinking? 

I hear people are the problem...well yeah...but how the fuck can you fix every person in America? Or make sure the person next door is a sensible as you?

You cant really...


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Dec 18, 2012)

Waking Dreamer said:


> How do you educate a mother who taught her son how to shoot 4 types of guns as a bonding activity, that she shouldnt have because he was mentally unstable?


You screen for mentally ill people so that mother knows?


----------



## Waking Dreamer (Dec 18, 2012)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> You screen for mentally ill people so that mother knows?



Didnt she know? 

Also her son didnt purchase the gun, she did. Are you supposed to screen every family member of every one who purchases a gun?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Dec 18, 2012)

Waking Dreamer said:


> Didnt she know?


He was autistic? That's not the kind of mental instability that causes this.


----------



## Waking Dreamer (Dec 18, 2012)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> He was autistic? That's not the kind of mental instability that causes this.



The fault was hers though, no laws stopped her from teaching her son.

The argument here is that you need to fix people...but there are too many problems of all types to make sure people with guns or access to them do the most sensible thing.

The issue is whether to fix People or Guns right?

People are _far more_ unpredictable than the guns, far harder to deal with, and far harder to "fix."


----------



## Bender (Dec 18, 2012)

Stygian said:


> That is ridiculous.
> WHO IS GOING TO TAKE THEM AWAY? Who is going to enforce these fantastical laws of yours and how are they going to pull it off?
> How are you going to get them out of the hands of the criminals?
> 
> Your posts raises more questions than it answers!



The government as always is goiing to be responsible for taking away a persons guns. WHO THE FUCK DO YOU THINK I'M REFERRING TO GENIUS?




> BUT YOU CAN'T LIMIT IT! What don't you grasp about that? The criminals are not going to lose their guns, the law abiding citizens are!
> A lock up for a residential neighborhood to store their guns? That's fucking ridiculous! How will people protect their homes?
> Why don't they just get a fucking gunsafe to put in their house; that's such an easy solution instead of this whackjob shit you are proposing


.

The people who are citizens that lack the mental prowess are the criminals. Those are the ones who start the goddamn shootings. Where the hell is your brain at? It's more up your ass then in your head. 

How the hell have you not heard of a place where they hold your guns for you? The thing with being in a family which someone is a gun-holder is that your relatives/children will always find a way to crack the safe. If it's held by some gun store place it's more protected and the facility will be filled with cameras to capture the actions of people stealing shit. 



> OH. MY. GOD.
> It's like your testicles shriveled up and fell off. Are you even a man, or are you full on sterotypically gay?



What the fuck does the possibility of being a homosexual have to do with me holding a gun? It's a terrifying experience when you recall that a motherfucking minor held a weapon. Have you even thought of the prospect of someone with no experience with a firearm holding it? Quit acting like some goddamn jock mr. e-thug.



> It's ironic that you yourself are one of these people who you claim are mentally unfit to handle a firearm. If these psychological tests were ever implemented, you'd never pass them.





Oh I'm mentally unfit because my ideals don't work with yours. I never want to hold a gun in my hand again. Also I'm a fucking adult (not sure about you) a college student, and have a driver's license.

EDIT:

Here's your logic in a nutshell: Let things go about how they will and I'm certain America's gunholders will change for the better. Who cares that in the recent incident some nutjob killed 20+ elementary kids! Things will get better!


----------



## Soldaun (Dec 18, 2012)

We didn't get very far in the last three pages have we? 

As for Bender I fired my first rifle at the age of 14 and had used BB guns prior to that from the age of 9. All supervised by an adult in the family who would be with me while teaching me how to shoot. They would first teach proper firearm safety before handing us the gun. We were required to load the gun ourselves so we knew how and then when ready to fire we were instructed on proper form and how to aim. A minor operating a firearm is nothing scary and I intend to teach my children when I have some at a very young age. As a firearms owner if you keep firearms a secret from your child they will go behind your back out of curiosity and try to gain access to them without your knowledge, but if you teach them how to safely operate one, and that guns deserve our utmost respect your child will be safe around any firearm you hand him. I was taught to respect firearms and I always will. I am only 20 years old, but I safely own 5 guns. Three rifles and two revolvers, and I do intend on expanding my "collection." 

As for this concept of military grade assault rifles, it is pure bunk. For it to be an assault rifle it would require the weapon to be at least select fire or without select fire but still fully automatic from design to building process. All of these "assault" rifles you have today are simply semi automatic variants of the M16 assault rifle, popularly known as an AR15. AR15's are no different than a contemporary wood stock hunting rifle that is chambered for the same round except for the fact is resembles a rifle in military service. Simply looking like a military assault rifle does not make it an assault rifle, educate yourself. 

Go to Calguns or thehighroad, they will gladly educate you. 

As for why I own weapons and why I believe I have the right to, it simply comes down to it being my right as a human being on this planet. No person has the right to tell what I can or cannot own but for the sake of living in a modern society concessions are made, but my guns, well that I won't step aside on. 

Edit: I find it funny you hate guns but your avatar has one in it.


----------



## Bender (Dec 18, 2012)

@Soldaun

Bender is a cartoon character. He's not real. How you can call that as example of my stance on guns is... wow.


----------



## Soldaun (Dec 18, 2012)

And out of my whole paragraph you chose to defend your avatar instead of your stance on gun control.


----------



## baconbits (Dec 18, 2012)

Soldaun said:


> And out of my whole paragraph you chose to defend your avatar instead of your stance on gun control.



He probably doesn't have an actual argument.

One thing I've noticed is that most of these massacres occur in gun-free zones.  It sounds to me like these mass murderers are specifically targeting places they know will be defenseless.  We should try to solve this issue before we think of abandoning the principles our nation was founded upon.


----------



## Neo Arcadia (Dec 18, 2012)

Well, to see this bill being introduced is no surprise whatsoever. I saw it coming the moment I heard about the shooting news.

$10 says it _will_ go far. Very far...


----------



## Bender (Dec 18, 2012)

@Soldaun

Its early in the morning. Plus I have to get up and clean around the place soon. I'll wreck your shit later.


----------



## Mider T (Dec 18, 2012)

Yeah okay, says the guy who can't formulate a proper retort on his best days.


----------



## Bender (Dec 18, 2012)

@Soldaun

Huh, nevermind my job of cleaning the house is being done by the cleaning people today. Fine whatever, I'll indulge your stupid inquiry. It's like said be-fucking before: handgun pistols, and hunting rifles should be the only guns available to the public. People who already have the heavy automatic rifles, and ones that carry up to 40-60 rounds may as already keep them but still have to get them registered and submit to psychiatric evaluations to be able to keep them. Also there should be lock-ups for people's firearms near every residential area (so we don't have shit like kids jacking their parents guns like with what happened with the Newton shooting).

Understand? Only handgun pistols and hunting rifles are the only ones that should be be available, anything other then that is an oxy-fucking moron. Everyone who wants to get them also has to submit to psychiatric evaluation, criminal background history check (any incidents of assault and battery). If they have zero history of that then they're suited to get a firearm. 

This is the final time I'm spelling out my stance on it.  I'm not gonna say it again. Don't know my stance that's your problem.

@Mider T

Instead of talking shit how about you tell us your stance if you even have one. All you do is go around and say "blah blah, you don't know what you're talking about" , "heh, I'm smarter than you! Oh you don't know what you're talking about! "Stop dickriding ___".

All you're doing is taking up necessary space for intelligent conversations. Heck you're not even contributing.


----------



## Soldaun (Dec 18, 2012)

Handgun pistols?, they're to a large degree than same thing, just "handguns" would have sufficed, and considering you have a hard time separating the two it would odd for people, politicians included, to make opinions let alone legislature on such devices. Outside of hunting rifles, why shouldn't I be able to own certain rifles? Did you know AR15's are used by some people to hunt. 

Now can you tell me why I shouldn't own a fully automatic weapon, be it an SMG, LMG, HMG, or Assault Rifle? I know what I would and would not do with it, and as far as I'm concerned if you have a way of properly securing it, why not so long as your mentally stable and of sound mind. In my opinion all weapons should be secured in the home and that is part of the reason this tragedy happened, unsecured guns. Proper safety precautions would have prevented this whole thing along with proper medical care for a mentally unstable person. Having a neighborhood lockup for guns has got to be the worst idea I have heard of, especially if someone attacks your house or worse yet your "secure" lockup.


----------



## Neo Arcadia (Dec 18, 2012)

Speak of the devil, within the same hour as my post earlier...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/18/us-usa-shooting-connecticut-obama-idUSBRE8BH10W20121218



> President Barack Obama supports U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein's effort to craft legislation to reinstate an assault-weapons ban and would also back any law to close a loophole in gun-show sales, the White House said on Tuesday.


----------



## Sanity Check (Dec 18, 2012)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> Assault weapons are involved in a small fraction of shootings.
> 
> If 80% of public shootings involve handguns (often obtained illegally) what difference will imposing stricter assault weapon bans will make?
> 
> ...



.

Would still like a response to the above.

Why an assault weapon ban when they're involved in only a small fraction of shootings & homicides?

Likewise, considering many firearms used in crimes are obtained illegally what difference does stricter regulation make?


----------



## Mansali (Dec 18, 2012)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> .
> 
> Would still like a response to the above.
> 
> ...



Can you explain why Japan, Australia, Canada, Britain have lets gun violence compared to the US? 

The US has way too many guns and regulation should help reduce the amounts of guns. 

Offer cash as an incentive to people for turning in their guns in my opinion

In this recent shooting, the Mom got the guns to protect her self and tha back fired when she got killed by her own guns.


----------



## Sanity Check (Dec 18, 2012)

Mansali said:


> Can you explain why Japan, Australia, Canada, Britain have lets gun violence compared to the US?
> 
> The US has way too many guns and regulation should help reduce the amounts of guns.
> 
> Offer cash as an incentive to people for turning in their guns in my opinion



You didn't answer what I said.

Everything you said are generic and recycled talking points those who don't know much about gun control use.  To answer why the United States has high homicide statistics, you need to answer why some countries have extremely high rape statistics and others do not.

Eventually you might realize to explain such things involves society, psychology, mainstream opinion, government policy and a host of other factors that at first glance might seem completely unrelated.

Switzerland has higher gun ownership and laxer gun regulations than the United States.  They also have very low incidents of homicide.

If you bothered to look into it, you might realize that mass shootings like columbine don't occur purely as a result of gun ownership.  Parents and students of columbine reported to school administrators and the police that 2 students were planning to shoot up the school.

Police and school did nothing.  They did nothing to defuse or address the circumstances that led to the shootings, thus in a sense they could be considered culpable if not the biggest empowering factors which allowed such things to occur.

Blaming guns for columbine and incidents like it is a kneejerk reaction whereby guns are blamed for violence to defer blame from the real causes.

Also trying to compare japan to the united states is like comparing apples and oranges.  There are a lot of variables and circumstances involved, pretending that murder or killing didn't exist before guns were invented and forcing context in such a way as to suggest that guns, gun laws and gun ownership are the only variables which determine rates relating to homicide really are exercises in futility and ignorance.

.


----------



## Mansali (Dec 18, 2012)

I personally do blame guns. If those kids did not has access to guns they would not have been able to kill so many people. 

The problem with your argument is that when Australia did have guns they had a high rate of gun violence. Then they had a program where people voluntarily gave up their guns for compensation. Loads of guns were destroyed and there was tougher gun regulation. 

In the US there needs to be more regulations of guns and you will see less gun violence.

Japan has all the video games and movies that we do and they have tight gun regulation which results in nearly no gun related violence.


----------



## Bender (Dec 18, 2012)

@Soldaun

Look: "You have the right to bear arms."

Not have fucking military grade weapons. That's reserved more government sponsored forces. 



It is not impossible to get rid of other semi-automatics, automatic rifles and other crazed guns that people have. 

Just look at this poll:



Also why you should own a fully automatic weapon? Why the hell do you think?Those are military grade fucking weapons. NOT something that any civvie should have in their collection. Also just because you're armed doesn't mean a mass murderer will be stopped. Allowing you two be armed with those types of weapons is the same as allowing mass murders of school shootings to be armed. Handguns and nothing but handguns and hunting rifles are allowed. You're not your own private army and no citizen is allowed to do such a thing. Your government is entrusted with your safety and deploying such weaponry to confront these threats. NOT YOU.

Here's the number of mass shootings graph





Also whoo-dee-flipping dee do AR15's are used. Guess what? I don't care. You're stupid insane fuck if you think you need that caliber

This should be the only type of firearm used for hunting



I don't care if you're hoping to kill bigfoot or some other imaginary fucking animal you do not need ridiculous types of weapons that are militaristic like that one.

Oh and this



> In my opinion all weapons should be secured in the home and that is part of the reason this tragedy happened, unsecured guns.



Right, because that worked so well in the case of this latest tragedy. 

You live in the same home as your children and such and you really expect them not to get a hold of it? Leave it to a lock-up where people will take care of your weapon and you're the only one allowed to access it. 

And vast majority of Americans such as you are incredibly untrained and can't be trusted with advanced firearms. Having a hand on it for safety reasons is pathetic especially since there's no telling when such a emotionally unstable person like that will crack. 

Heavy restricted gun society is a peaceful one. Just look at Japan. Them regulating their firearms has led to like non-existent gun incidents.

On another note:

*High-Capacity Magazines Targeted By Democrats In New Gun Control Push*



> WASHINGTON -- House Democrats say they've seen a groundswell of support within their caucus for legislation that would prohibit the manufacturing of high-capacity magazines. At least two lawmakers are planning to push for a vote on such legislation before the year ends.
> 
> The bill backed by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) and Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) mirrors legislation that has been introduced in the Senate by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.). It would ban magazines for more than 10 rounds of ammunition and prohibit the transfer, possession or importation of those magazines that are manufactured after the date of the law being signed.
> 
> ...





Liking it.

Also as said multiple times:

The 2nd Amendment was written at a time when "arms" meant muzzle-loaded, flintrock-fired, single-shot rifles. So if we don't need the Constitution "to reflect the wishes of current society", then we must take it for what the framers intended when the amendment was written. 

Since those were what it was back then we'll follow that regulation. The only type of arms it's only sensible that civvies carry only semi-auto handgun firearms (for those so damn pussy-like at that prospect of a home-invasion) and hunting rifle.


----------



## Soldaun (Dec 18, 2012)

You do realize the United States has a gun buy back program, and while it is used, most sane people want to keep their guns.

Bender, I'm going to let you in on something, I'm not untrained, I'm in the U. S. Army. Ever shot an M240B, or an M16 on burst, I have. So don't make assumptions on someone's firearms training. 

Benning Boy Hooah!

As for debating you, I'm done because of your lack of grammar skills and your emotional take on the 2A. When emotions take over it goes down hill, especially when logic is needed. Not to mention changing your opinion means nothing, your not a politician anyway.


----------



## Bender (Dec 18, 2012)

Soldaun said:


> You do realize the United States has a gun buy back program, and while it is used, most sane people want to keep their guns.



If those sane-people register as sane in mental evaluations let them keep it. It'll be tedious to go knocking on every door and say they're taking their advanced weapons so might as well let them keep it. However, those people fail they immediately give up their ownership of them. 

On another note, I really don't give a darn if you want to keep it. I don't I'm sorry. Fuck you people who do want to keep them. Fuck you. 20 + kids died and I really don't see their spirits resting in peace so long as shit is so goddamn unbalanced. Your rights are shit in comparison to their lives.


----------



## Destroyer of Kittens (Dec 18, 2012)

Mansali said:


> Can you explain why Japan, Australia, Canada, Britain have lets gun violence compared to the US?
> 
> The US has way too many guns and regulation should help reduce the amounts of guns.
> 
> ...



You may be right that Autrailia does have less gun violence since it has inacted the gun ban....  but looking at these statistics


----------



## Sanity Check (Dec 18, 2012)

Mansali said:


> I personally do blame guns. If those kids did not has access to guns they would not have been able to kill so many people.
> 
> The problem with your argument is that when Australia did have guns they had a high rate of gun violence. Then they had a program where people voluntarily gave up their guns for compensation. Loads of guns were destroyed and there was tougher gun regulation.
> 
> ...



*Gun violence* isn't an important statistic.  Guns aren't the only means of committing violence or crime.  They can also be a deterrent preventing violence and crime from occurring.  I'll give you an example -- imagine you live in Texas a state in the united states were many own guns.  You probably wouldn't break into someone's house and rob them because if they own a gun they could legally shoot you and not be prosecuted.

If guns were illegalized, suddenly you know every house on the block is unarmed.  If you're a thief or a criminal you know you can rob someone and unlike texas where many own guns, you would have better statistical odds of getting away with it.

This is one reason why banning firearms doesn't necessarily do anything to diminish or reduce crime but can have the complete opposite effect.

The statistics that really are important are *violence* and *homicide*.

After guns bans in Australia and the UK total incidents of *violence* and *homicide* increased.  For this reason it really is questionable as to whether gun bans and strict gun laws actually do deter crime and save lives.  The evidence and statistics in terms of elevated crime, homicide and violence indicate gun bans have the opposite effect of what they claim.

Like I said, switzerland.

Comparing japan to america as if they were one and the same is bad context.  

Japan doesn't have better education and academic scores than the united states because of better regulation.  Its because of other reasons involving culture, society, etc.

Likewise with japan having low incidents of homicide, etc.

Its not because they don't own guns, its because they have less people with a motivation to murder one another.



Destroyer of Kittens said:


> You may be right that Autrailia does have less gun violence since it has inacted the gun ban....  but looking at these statistics



This.

If beleving in religion without evidence is bad...

Believing in gun bans without evidence to support them can't be much better.


----------



## Destroyer of Kittens (Dec 18, 2012)

Bender said:


> If those sane-people register as sane in mental evaluations let them keep it. It'll be tedious to go knocking on every door and say they're taking their advanced weapons so might as well let them keep it. However, those people fail they immediately give up their ownership of them.
> 
> On another note, I really don't give a darn if you want to keep it. I don't I'm sorry. Fuck you people who do want to keep them. Fuck you. 20 + kids died and I really don't see their spirits resting in peace so long as shit is so goddamn unbalanced. Your rights are shit in comparison to their lives.



So bender.  would you be willing to apply your standard to Alchohol?  According to allmighty google there are 75,000 alchohol related deaths a year in the United states.  40,000 are do to drunk driving.  I guarentee more kids die do to that than do to Active shooter incidents.  much like assault weapons alchohol isnt really needed by anyone, and it really doesnt do anyone any good.  Should we ban alchohol?


----------



## Neo Arcadia (Dec 18, 2012)

Bender said:


> @Soldaun
> 
> Look: "You have the right to bear arms."
> 
> Not have fucking military grade weapons. That's reserved more government sponsored forces.



Uh I'm pretty sure the whole point of that being added to the constitution was so people would be able to rise up against a corrupt government just as America was founded by, you know, bearing arms and rising up against Britain.

Kind of a moot point in this day and age with shit like drones, tanks, missiles, pain rays, etc but still. In fact, if we went with the actual intent of the second amendment _all of those things_ should be legally available to the public so we're on equal standing with the government's military. Eh forget it, let's not open that massive can of worms.


----------



## Bender (Dec 18, 2012)

*Sandy Hook Parent Sends Message To NRA: 'Return This Country Their Kids'*



> WASHINGTON -- Andrei Nikitchyuk, whose 8-year-old son escaped violence at Sandy Hook Elementary School last week, had a message Tuesday for the National Rifle Association: Think of the children who could be saved in the future if stricter gun control laws are enacted.
> 
> "I would offer NRA, return this country their kids," Nikitchyuk told reporters after a press conference hosted by Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.) and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, which advocates for stricter gun control laws. "If they can do it, I would like that very, very much."
> 
> ...





Preach to the goddamn choir papa


----------



## Waking Dreamer (Dec 18, 2012)

Neo Arcadia said:


> Uh I'm pretty sure the whole point of that being added to the constitution was so people would be able to rise up against a corrupt government just as America was founded by, you know, bearing arms and rising up against Britain.
> 
> Kind of a moot point in this day and age with shit like drones, tanks, missiles, pain rays, etc but still. In fact, if we went with the actual intent of the second amendment _all of those things_ should be legally available to the public so we're on equal standing with the government's military. Eh forget it, let's not open that massive can of worms.



That's his point though. 

You cant take the constitution for face value in this day and age.


----------



## Destroyer of Kittens (Dec 18, 2012)

Oh sigh.  its really hard to win against arguments that appeal to emotions.  With that said im out.

that said.  Do to republicans having utter control over the house and will at least until 2020 "when the new distric lines are brought up" this is a moot point.


----------



## Bender (Dec 18, 2012)

Neo Arcadia said:


> Uh I'm pretty sure the whole point of that being added to the constitution was so people would be able to rise up against a corrupt government just as America was founded by, you know, bearing arms and rising up against Britain.



The firearms law back then was also used firmly and frequently had dueling contests. Back then they never went at it with any rifles or most notable war weapon of their times bayonets. They used single shot pistols.



> Kind of a moot point in this day and age with shit like drones, tanks, missiles, pain rays, etc but still.



IT.DOESN'T.MATTER



You don't need any semi-automatic rifles or automatic rifles. You are not your own army, you aren't a super-hero. A handgun pistol and hunting rifle. That's all. Nothing more nothing less. 



> So bender. would you be willing to apply your standard to Alchohol? According to allmighty google there are 75,000 alchohol related deaths a year in the United states. 40,000 are do to drunk driving. I guarentee more kids die do to that than do to Active shooter incidents. much like assault weapons alchohol isnt really needed by anyone, and it really doesnt do anyone any good. Should we ban alchohol?



Don't be stupid.  Alcohol is an object of leisure and people not being able to hold their liquor and drink responsibly is their own fault.


----------



## Bender (Dec 18, 2012)

@Destroyer of Kittens

This isn't just emotions it's logic as well. Their is too much obsession clouding the eyes of pro-gun people to understand how much harm is being done because of the extreme arm types they carry.


----------



## Soldaun (Dec 18, 2012)

So its the persons fault if they get drunk, but it isn't their fault if they shoot someone, it's the inanimate objects fault. Ok, thanks for clarifying.

Also guns are devices of leisure, I go to the range if I need to blow of steam, and it works quite well, but if you had any say in the matter we should all just get drunk. I like alcohol but not that much.


----------



## Bryan Paulsen (Dec 18, 2012)

This bill will fail as it well should. It is wholly reactionary and does nothing to address the underlying problem here. The problem is sociopaths in society that manage to escape the attention of health professionals, and that is a problem that will *never* go away entirely. We need to help raise up our fellow man so that they never reach that point in the first place, help those that are showing signs of sociopathy, and be prepared to put them down with force when they slip through the cracks and act on their inclinations. Mass murder has been around a hell of a lot longer than guns have, and there are always other means that can be used by those that really aim to do it.

How many more sociopaths need to target gun-free zones like schools and theatres before the collective finally learns that sociopaths target those for a reason?

How many gun control laws need to be on the books before people realize they don't stop people aiming to commit mass murder?

How many illegally owned firearms in circulation does there need to be before gun control advocates finally learn that the laws primarily restrict those that actually abide by the law?

Now, on a tangential note: if Bender (or any of his ilk) wants to put forth a logical reason for why the State can own/use certain guns, but not individuals, then I am all ears. I want to see one of those fantastically theistic believers of the State opine on its greatness, incorruptibility and moral infallibility when it comes to its monopoly on force and the agents it commands.

I'm not holding my breath.


----------



## Shoddragon (Dec 18, 2012)

how does this thread still remain terrible?

banning guns WON'T STOP VIOLENT CRIMES.

have some of you failed basic psychology? if someone wants to hurt another person they are going to do it regardless of whether they have access to guns or not.

all that is trying to be done is take guns out of the equation and while you think you may be doing this country a favor you really aren't because you are ignoring the real problem and that is the people.

Laziness ( AKA, not wanting to go through the process of nation wide psychological tests and evaluations) in favor of something quick ( trying to ban guns because you think that somehow it will drop the rate of all violent crimes and such) will not stop these violent crimes from happening.

What I AM seeing is a lot of association fallacies where people are assuming because some countries have stricter gun laws and less gun violence that this directly affects all violent crime which is of course false.

even psychological it would make no sense. Take prisons for example, especially those with violent offenders. almost never any guns in there but inmates find ways to harm and kill each other anyway.


----------



## Bender (Dec 18, 2012)

Soldaun said:


> So its the persons fault if they get drunk, but it isn't their fault if they shoot someone, it's the inanimate objects fault. Ok, thanks for clarifying.



They age for drinking is clear and it's the adults who have custody's responsibility to maintain things.



> *Also guns are devices of leisure*,



In the hunting sense they should be. Not in the collecting sense. If you believe collecting a bloody *AK-47* and other types of arms is completely fine...you have issues. Our founding fathers had their fun with mini pistols which they used to engage in duels. Also their hunting weapons were nothing too fancy either. 




> I go to the range if I need to blow of steam, and it works quite well, but if you had any say in the matter we should all just get drunk.



Here's the thing, alcohol is something you do when discussing things with family,friends and a beverage adults drink to relax in a soothing atmosphere. There is absolutely NOTHING calm or enjoyably enlightening about shooting things. Last I checked in that atmosphere you can't allow kids or whatever to be with you and talk and allowed to talk as much.



			
				Bryan Paulsen said:
			
		

> Now, on a tangential note: if Bender (or any of his ilk) wants to put forth a logical reason for why the State can own/use certain guns, but not individuals, then I am all ears. I want to see one of those fantastically theistic believers of the State opine on its greatness, incorruptibility and moral infallibility when it comes to its monopoly on force and the agents it commands.




"The National Rifle Association has called high-capacity magazines "standard equipment for self-defense handguns," but let's not kid ourselves: the only reason to supersize a handgun to two or three times its original bullet capacity is because you want to kill a lot of people very quickly."

If you really think its logical to carry high-capacity magazines you either A) Think I'm an idiot B)You're an idiot C) Have not seen the equipment of sick fucks who do mass-shootings. 

On another note, if you want to go hunting with that type of weaponry you're insane. I know you like shooting things in the wild but seriously that's ridiculous and it brings into question your abilities with a firearm. The whole "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" comes to mind when we speak about this. It's your ability that is used not the gun you're hunting with.

Let me reiterate: there is no reason for high capacity magazines. They have no legitimate use in a civilized society. Time to move back in the right (not politically) direction. Civilized societies under a government of laws restrict the presence of firearms. Citizens are protected by the law. Firearms only prevail in a lawless atmosphere where vigilantes presume to take the law into their own hands. I don't want to carry a gun or worry that they are omnipresent. I vote for civilization and the rule of law and reasonable restrictions on firearms.



			
				Shoddragon said:
			
		

> banning guns WON'T STOP VIOLENT CRIMES.
> 
> have some of you failed basic psychology? if someone wants to hurt another person they are going to do it regardless of whether they have access to guns or not.
> 
> ...



No one here ever said anything about banning ALL guns. We're talking about high-capacity firearms.  

Those are going bye-bye no matter what you say. Goodbye to those Semi-automatic rifles, Automatic-rifles. Okay? Bye to all of them. 

A hunting rifle and automatic handgun firearm is enough.


----------



## Mintaka (Dec 18, 2012)

> Those are going bye-bye no matter what you say. Goodbye to those  Semi-automatic rifles, Automatic-rifles. Okay? Bye to all of them.


It hasn't happened yet.  Why are jumping to this conclusion so easily?


----------



## spankdatbitch (Dec 18, 2012)

Bender said:


> Thank fucking goodness this bill has been introduced.



Eat shit congress...


----------



## Soldaun (Dec 18, 2012)

Bender, ever read Fahrenheit 451? Mentalities such as your will make oppressive governments su h as the one in that book come to fruition. You may not realize this but governments exist to take, you give them an inch they take the whole mile. Concede on one gun law and they go for them all. I will not stand idly by as my government deteriorates my rights and freedoms. I will not give my rights away, but I will fight to obtain more.


----------



## spankdatbitch (Dec 18, 2012)

Bender said:


> No one here ever said anything about banning ALL guns. We're talking about high-capacity firearms.
> 
> Those are going bye-bye no matter what you say. Goodbye to those Semi-automatic rifles, Automatic-rifles. Okay? Bye to all of them.
> 
> A hunting rifle and automatic handgun firearm is enough.



Or I'm thinking we'll go back to the way things were during prohibition.
Namely we see the silly piece of paper that tells us we can't do something,have a good laugh,and then go out and do backroom deals to get them anyway 

Silly Bender thinking a piece of paper signed by the Congress/Corporate sell out in chief is gonna stop people from doing as they will.


----------



## drache (Dec 18, 2012)

Soldaun said:


> Bender, ever read Fahrenheit 451? Mentalities such as your will make oppressive governments su h as the one in that book come to fruition. You may not realize this but governments exist to take, you give them an inch they take the whole mile. Concede on one gun law and they go for them all. I will not stand idly by as my government deteriorates my rights and freedoms. I will not give my rights away, but I will fight to obtain more.



and 9/11 was an inside job right?

your stance is down right insane


----------



## Bender (Dec 18, 2012)

@Drache

Niiiiiice

   

@Soldaun

lol @ comparison between a work of fiction and reality.


----------



## Dr. Obvious (Dec 18, 2012)

Well, now we all know what Feinstein would do if you gave her a illegally-modded assault rifle w/ 100+ rounds ready to go...put her in jail and call her psychiatrists before she goes ballistic on anyone!


----------



## Lord of Fire (Dec 18, 2012)

All this will do is drive people to the black market for high powered guns making the dealers very rich. When will you people learn ? Second the average American will not give up weapons without an fight.


----------



## drache (Dec 18, 2012)

Lord of Fire said:


> All this will do is drive people to the black market for high powered guns making the dealers very rich. When will you people learn ? Second the average American will not give up weapons without an fight.



no because the fact is that the assault weapons ban doesn't effect many americans


----------



## Waking Dreamer (Dec 18, 2012)

Soldaun said:


> I will not stand idly by as my government deteriorates my rights and freedoms. I will not give my rights away, but I will fight to obtain more.



I dont recommend you bring your gun collection along when you do fight, otherwise they will take it away from you sooner than the rest.


----------



## Dr. Obvious (Dec 18, 2012)

What are we citizens supposed to do the minute the nihilist assholes that sit above the US government and every other major part of our society (banks, education, media, food supplies, etc) decide to hire China to raid the US in order to squander resources and eliminate 80% of the population? They've already got us in an oblivious stupor with all the dumb shit they pump into our heads through mass media & education, it's like they're pushing an agenda to get us to breed as fast as possible while eating unhealthy foods and making us as stupid and defenseless as humanly possible so they can have the ultimate human-hunting party. And if we have no way to defend ourselves, then we're outright fucked.

If you want to do some good, take the lead in your own life and A) stock up on guns for DEFENSE reasons, B) DON'T make yourself the media's idiot example of a gun owner that shoots up a community, C) unplug from our idiot media corporatocracy as they do not care about you or your family, D) encourage others to do the same.

If you don't want to do any of those things, at least be mindful and aware of how the government and media impact your life without your permission.


----------



## Bender (Dec 18, 2012)

@Lord of fire


----------



## Lord of Fire (Dec 18, 2012)

drache said:


> no because the fact is that the assault weapons ban doesn't effect many americans


Most gun owners have a high powered gun  in there home somewhere just for fun/target practice i live in Iowa and this seems to hold true for everyone 

Time to make some new connects so when the man bans them I can profit


----------



## @lk3mizt (Dec 18, 2012)

Soldaun said:


> Bender, ever read Fahrenheit 451? Mentalities such as your will make oppressive governments su h as the one in that book come to fruition. You may not realize this but governments exist to take, you give them an inch they take the whole mile. Concede on one gun law and they go for them all. I will not stand idly by as my government deteriorates my rights and freedoms. I will not give my rights away, but I will fight to obtain more.



lol.


another one who thinks if he's packing an AK, he can somehow beat the government with its drones, tanks, etc, etc.

or that he can use them to "fight to obtain more rights" 

You lot amuse me with your absolutely mental paranoia.


Congress! BAN semi-automatic/ assault weapons!! Those weapons have no place in civil society. Those are weapons meant for theaters of war. 

Have you guys even considered the fact that you're doing Al-Qaeda's job for them?

I swear, if I were Al-Qaeda, I'd lobby for this bill to fail. Let those "American infidels" keep killing themselves.


----------



## Dr. Obvious (Dec 18, 2012)

Bender said:


> @Lord of fire



Dumbest chart ever. The solution is to allow legal conceal & carry permits for everyone, everywhere. You think killers are gonna knowingly go to a place where potentially many people have concealed weapons?

The 2nd part of the solution won't happen, but it would be to convince the media to not recognize the killers. That's what they're after is infamy, and the media serves it on a silver platter. It won't happen, but it would be extremely helpful if it did.


----------



## spankdatbitch (Dec 18, 2012)

drache said:


> and 9/11 was an inside job right?
> 
> your stance is down right insane



Look at the big brain on Drache.
Parroting what the dum dum box told him just like a champ.
If it's on the boob tube it must be true,Drache wins.


----------



## Waking Dreamer (Dec 18, 2012)

Dr. Obvious said:


> What are we citizens supposed to do the minute the nihilist assholes that sit above the US government and every other major part of our society (banks, education, media, food supplies, etc) decide to hire China to raid the US in order to squander resources and eliminate 80% of the population?



Use a taser?

Backed up with pepper spray just to make sure...


----------



## spankdatbitch (Dec 18, 2012)

@lk3mizt said:


> lol.
> 
> 
> another one who thinks if he's packing an AK, he can somehow beat the government with its drones, tanks, etc, etc.
> ...



What a cowardly mentality.
Aw gee..we can't ever beat the shadow govt with their big scary superior weapons.Might as well give the weapons up,bend over,and take it up the backside.No thanks,some of us have a little pride about ourselves.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Dec 18, 2012)

Mintaka said:


> It hasn't happened yet. Why are jumping to this conclusion so easily?


 There's a lot of simple minded liberals on this forum who seem to have forgotten that we're heading for finacial ruin. They think the victories they have are easy because they're always right, that's why we have single payer universal health care, aren't in any wars, and have perfect green policies...


----------



## drache (Dec 18, 2012)

Dr. Obvious said:


> Dumbest chart ever. The solution is to allow legal conceal & carry permits for everyone, everywhere. You think killers are gonna knowingly go to a place where potentially many people have concealed weapons?
> 
> The 2nd part of the solution won't happen, but it would be to convince the media to not recognize the killers. That's what they're after is infamy, and the media serves it on a silver platter. It won't happen, but it would be extremely helpful if it did.



dumbest idea ever 

yes let's add more guns to an already unstable situation



spankdatbitch said:


> Look at the big brain on Drache.
> Parroting what the dum dum box told him just like a champ.
> If it's on the boob tube it must be true,Drache wins.



in other words yes you do think 9/11 was an inside job


----------



## Bazu'aal (Dec 18, 2012)

spankdatbitch said:


> What a cowardly mentality.
> Aw gee..we can't ever beat the shadow govt with their big scary superior weapons.Might as well give the weapons up,bend over,and take it up the backside.No thanks,some of us have a little pride about ourselves.


----------



## Lord of Fire (Dec 18, 2012)

Bender said:


> @Lord of fire



So what are you trying to say ? The black market will just have new customers the sane and the insane.


----------



## Bender (Dec 18, 2012)

Lord of Fire said:


> So what are you trying to say ? The black market will just have new customers the sane and the insane.



No I'm saying if most rampage shooters got it legally what the hell makes you think the majority will show the capability of locating the arms dealers?


----------



## spankdatbitch (Dec 18, 2012)

drache said:


> in other words yes you do think 9/11 was an inside job



One day Drache ol boy you're gonna be amazed when it's revealed that everything isn't true,just because the gubment or dum dum box told you so.

Did I use simple enough words for you to understand me?


----------



## spankdatbitch (Dec 18, 2012)

Sacrifice said:


>



yes...cowardly


----------



## Dr. Obvious (Dec 18, 2012)

drache said:


> dumbest idea ever
> 
> yes let's add more guns to an already unstable situation



Better yet, protect the criminals by not allowing good people to carry guns. Give me one solid idea that demonstrates how taking guns away from responsible citizens will lower crime. Why do you think the Aurora, CO shooter attacked one of the Cinemark theaters, which is a chain that does not allow concealed weapons? Answer me.



> in other words yes you do think 9/11 was an inside job



neither agreeing nor disagreeing, but how much perspective do you put into your beliefs?


----------



## drache (Dec 18, 2012)

spankdatbitch said:


> One day Drache ol boy you're gonna be amazed when it's revealed that everything isn't true,just because the gubment or dum dum box told you so.
> 
> Did I use simple enough words for you to understand me?




one day you'll get the help you so clearly need 



Dr. Obvious said:


> Better yet, protect the criminals by not allowing good people to carry guns. Give me one solid example of how taking guns away from responsible citizens will lower crime. Why do you think the Aurora, CO shooter attacked one of the Cinemark theaters, which is a chain that does not allow concealed weapons? Answer me.





I have nothing but scorn for cowboy heroes like you

You've ever been in a gun fight? Or done shoot don't shoot training?

This isn't the wild west and you're not John Wayne


----------



## Smiley (Dec 18, 2012)




----------



## Lord of Fire (Dec 18, 2012)

Bender said:


> No I'm saying if most rampage shooters got it legally what the hell makes you think the majority will show the capability of locating the arms dealers?



Its easy to find a illegal arms dealer come on we all know that shady person that can get you just about anything we want


----------



## Bender (Dec 18, 2012)

Give me names of multiple crazed mass shooters that have gotten guns from illegal gun sellers.


----------



## spankdatbitch (Dec 18, 2012)

drache said:


> one day you'll get the help you so clearly need



*Yawn* Yes yes we know that apparently everyone who disagrees with what they tell you on the boob tube is a nutjob.

You're such an obedient little parrot.What else have they brainwashed you to believe that you can repeat for me?You're like a cute little furby with programmed responses


----------



## Smiley (Dec 18, 2012)

I hate to break this to anyone but murder is already illegal. There is totally a law against it.

Unfortunately laws don't apply to the criminals who are willing to break them, gun laws included. 

Disarming decent people and leaving them to the mercy of criminals is dumbfuck territory, and the supporters of this idea are invariably irrational cowards who are scared to be put in a position where they have to take responsibility for their own safety and the safety of others, desiring others to look after them instead, which is, I'm sorry to say, impossible. Police never have and never will protect you from an attacker, they'll only go looking for your murderer after he has already killed you.

Grow up. The world is a violent and dangerous place. Disarming yourself isn't going to change that. Anyone who thinks that it is, is confusing "thinking" with "being a retard".


----------



## Lord of Fire (Dec 18, 2012)

Bender said:


> Give me names of multiple crazed mass shooters that have gotten guns from illegal gun sellers.



I don't need to what i am saying is that if there is a ban people will go to the illegal arms dealer to get the type weapons they want in gang wars people already do this ban the weapons same effect


----------



## drache (Dec 18, 2012)

spankdatbitch said:


> *Yawn* Yes yes we know that apparently everyone who disagrees with what they tell you on the boob tube is a nutjob.
> 
> You're such an obedient little parrot.What else have they brainwashed you to believe that you can repeat for me?You're like a cute little furby with programmed responses



i am sure this means something to you but to me its just gibberish


----------



## spankdatbitch (Dec 18, 2012)

drache said:


> i am sure this means something to you but to me its just gibberish



Of course it is,you're a brain dead nitwit after all.


----------



## Bryan Paulsen (Dec 18, 2012)

Bender said:


> "The National Rifle Association has called high-capacity magazines "standard equipment for self-defense handguns," but let's not kid ourselves: the only reason to supersize a handgun to two or three times its original bullet capacity is because you want to kill a lot of people very quickly."
> 
> If you really think its logical to carry high-capacity magazines you either A) Think I'm an idiot B)You're an idiot C) Have not seen the equipment of sick fucks who do mass-shootings.
> 
> On another note, if you want to go hunting with that type of weaponry you're insane. I know you like shooting things in the wild but seriously that's ridiculous and it brings into question your abilities with a firearm. The whole "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" comes to mind when we speak about this. It's your ability that is used not the gun you're hunting with.



Is the State insane for wanting that type of weaponry?

How are the motivations of the State divorced from the motivations of the individual?

They're the same potential motivations, and therefore arguments for one can be used for the other.



> Let me reiterate: there is no reason for high capacity magazines. They have no legitimate use in a civilized society. Time to move back in the right (not politically) direction. Civilized societies under a government of laws restrict the presence of firearms. Citizens are protected by the law. Firearms only prevail in a lawless atmosphere where vigilantes presume to take the law into their own hands. I don't want to carry a gun or worry that they are omnipresent. I vote for civilization and the rule of law and reasonable restrictions on firearms.



There is no "reason" for the State to own high capacity magazines using your incredibly shallow logic, but they do. If you were logically consistent you would say they shouldn't either, but I don't think you're prepared to take that step. Deep down you know full well you're a hypocrite when it comes to gun ownership, and haven't come to terms with it.

#1) Citizens are not "protected" by law until _after_ their rights have been violated and the perpetrator caught.

#2) Firearms of _all_ varieties serve as a prophylactic against the violation of your rights against attempted aggression. This can include unwarranted aggression by the State (at least the state of Indiana gets this right - cops that wrongly invade your house can be shot, but this is illegal in the other 49 states).

#3) Laws restricting the presence of firearms don't achieve their fucking purpose outside of totally disarming law-abiding citizens in the area. Exhibit A is this mass-shooting! All creating gun-free zones does is give you an unwarranted sense of security.

#4) Utopian fantasies have no bearing on reality. If you worry that guns are omnipresent that's _your_ problem. We have open carry in Arizona, and when I see someone with a gun on their waist at the grocery store _I don't give a flying fuck and neither do the people around_. You have no right to cast your damned insecurities on the rest of us. If you want to be unarmed that's your perogative, but not everyone enjoys being a lamb to the slaughter against an assailant armed with anything from a bat to a kitchen knife. This goes *double* for women who would lose the vast majority of altercations with a male unless she was trained in the usage of a firearm. The bullshit thinking that the individual is better off unarmed and that only the State should be armed leads to the dependence on the police, which is enough of a joke in its own right.

Guns exist. They're here. Laws restricting their usage primarily affects those that actually care to abide by said laws. Did the fact the school was a gun-free zone impact the shooter? Results speak for themselves. How about the Aurora shooter and concealed carry being banned at that theatre? Nope, didn't stop that one either.

You can't stop a sociopath that has slipped through the cracks. Period. You're helpless and you can't stand it, but until you grow up and come to terms with it you will remain a daydreaming child.

You are a weak, insecure individual that cannot handle being unable to control what other people do with objects that could potentially kill you, and due to your lack of control you want everybody to be entirely dependent on the State in matters of personal security.



> No one here ever said anything about banning ALL guns. We're talking about high-capacity firearms.
> 
> Those are going bye-bye no matter what you say. Goodbye to those Semi-automatic rifles, Automatic-rifles. Okay? Bye to all of them.
> 
> A hunting rifle and automatic handgun firearm is enough.



Your rank hypocrisy is shameful.

You aren't pro-gun control. You're pro-haves versus have-nots. The State has the guns, the individuals are severely limited in comparison.

You have no logical basis for determining what is/isn't enough in light of being perfectly fine with any State-sponsored clown in a uniform having access to whatever-the-fuck weaponry they want. Look no further than the militarization of police forces across the US, because that's a result of your asinine logic.


----------



## Bender (Dec 18, 2012)

@Bryan Paulsen 

If it's made so that people have to do psychiatric evaluations and such and criminal background  which was arrests based on assaults then hell yes we can get it away from the psychos.

Your defeatist bull is painful as fuck.


----------



## drache (Dec 18, 2012)

Bryan Paulsen said:


> #1) Citizens are not "protected" by law until _after_ their rights have been violated and the perpetrator caught.



you also don't get to go around shooting people just because you feel like it what's your point?



Bryan Paulsen said:


> #2) Firearms of _all_ varieties serve as a prophylactic against the violation of your rights against attempted aggression. This can include unwarranted aggression by the State (at least the state of Indiana gets this right - cops that wrongly invade your house can be shot, but this is illegal in the other 49 states).



there are plenty of remedies availibile for you and the fact is that if you want to defend yourself from cops  you're plain crazy



Bryan Paulsen said:


> #3) Laws restricting the presence of firearms don't achieve their fucking purpose outside of totally disarming law-abiding citizens in the area. Exhibit A is this mass-shooting! All creating gun-free zones does is give you an unwarranted sense of security.



bullshit you gun nut


----------



## Dr. Obvious (Dec 18, 2012)

drache said:


> > Better yet, protect the criminals by not allowing good people to carry guns. Give me one solid example of how taking guns away from responsible citizens will lower crime. Why do you think the Aurora, CO shooter attacked one of the Cinemark theaters, which is a chain that does not allow concealed weapons? Answer me.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You completely avoided my question and resorted to presuming cultural stereotypes. Why do you think the Aurora, CO shooter attacked one of the Cinemark theaters, which is a chain that does not allow concealed weapons?


----------



## Bryan Paulsen (Dec 18, 2012)

Bender said:


> @Bryan Paulsen
> 
> If it's made so that people have to do psychiatric evaluations and such and criminal background  which was arrests based on assaults then hell yes we can get it away from the psychos.
> 
> Your defeatist bull is painful as fuck.



The mentally unsound can't use the black market?

And many of the sociopaths that slip through the cracks do not have a past history until they actually do something. Furthermore, people with sociopathic personality traits use utilitarian means to solve moral dilemmas, and a psychiatrist would evaluate those responses as rational.

It's going to happen again, and there's not shit you can do about it.



drache said:


> you also don't get to go around shooting people just because you feel like it what's your point?



Actually any person with a gun _could_ do that if they so desired. Eventually those aggressed against will be "protected by the law", but by then it will be too late.

The point is that, ultimately, laws do not "protect" in any normative sense. A tetanus shot protects against lockjaw, laws against murder do not protect against murder. It's an issue of the individual behind the action.



> there are plenty of remedies availibile for you and the fact is that if you want to defend yourself from cops  you're plain crazy



A remedy against someone with an illegally acquired firearm of any type? Not really. The cops aren't a remedy, and neither is a household object.

Should the cops perform a wrongful (read as: the wrong house) no-knock raid at 2:00am and get shot for it the individual shouldn't be punished for it. This has happened before, in case you were wondering, and that's most specifically what I was referring to.



> bullshit you gun nut



Did the gun-free school zone stop the shooter? Did it stop the Aurora shooter?

No?

Then shut the fuck up.


----------



## drache (Dec 18, 2012)

Dr. Obvious said:


> You completely avoided my question and resorted to presuming cultural stereotypes. Why do you think the Aurora, CO shooter attacked one of the Cinemark theaters, which is a chain that does not allow concealed weapons?



your question, your assumption is so utterly devoid of anything other then john wayne cliched thinking that mocking it was enough

but you want me to treat it seriously? sure since you don't mind apparently being embarrassed

It's dark, there's a movie playing, someone opens up fire while the movie sound effects are playing. The chaos is absurd you have people every where all trying to get out and you want to add more guns to that?!?

Did you know that when Rep Giffords was shot a citizen with an actual concealed weapon came running up? that he saw a guy with the gun and thought for a second about stopping and opening fire? That he didn't and instead tackled him only to realize that everyone was yelling that the guy was  not the shooter? That the guy then admitted on national tv that he seriously almost opened fire and possibly killing what was a good samartarian?

Now that's a good senario where there's only 1 extra gun and the guy showed some sense. That you want to talk about what is more a worst case where it's dark, chaotic and lots of incident bystanders is a farce. It shows you don't have a fucking clue how a gun fight actually works and how adding more guns to the situation only will make things worse

You live in a fantasy land with absolutely no grasp of reality nor the insanity of what you are proposing

That is why I have nothing but scorn for you gun nut, overdosed on testorone and john wayne types.


----------



## Bender (Dec 18, 2012)

> The mentally unsound can't use the black market?
> 
> And many of the sociopaths that slip through the cracks do not have a past history until they actually do something. Furthermore, people with sociopathic personality traits use utilitarian means to solve moral dilemmas, and a psychiatrist would evaluate those responses as rational.



Give me 3 examples of someone clearing through a test which the prerequisites are having a clean bill of mental health. Or better than that showing a counterfeit one and a counterfeit arrest record. They're not going to get a gun by slipping past it.


----------



## Bryan Paulsen (Dec 18, 2012)

Bender said:


> Give me 3 examples of someone clearing through a test which the prerequisites are having a clean bill of mental health. Or better than that showing a counterfeit one and a counterfeit arrest record. They're not going to get a gun by slipping past it.



You obviously do not understand the nature of sociopathy.



Utilitarian reasoning can easily produce anti-social results, meaning sociopaths typically demonstrate thoroughly rational behavior. They are, outwardly, normal enough that not even psychiatrists would detect them as a potential liability.

Once you recognize that utilitarians are very rational the vast majority of the time they are prone to not having arrest records, or ever having been considered to have an unsound mind until _after the fact_, at which point it all becomes _post hoc_ rationalizations.

People really need to read more and come to understand this is a _human_ issue, and you cannot control humanity. There will be sociopaths that slip through the cracks. Period.


----------



## drache (Dec 18, 2012)

^

you can control guns and access though


----------



## Stygian (Dec 18, 2012)




----------



## Bender (Dec 18, 2012)

Bryan Paulsen said:


> You obviously do not understand the nature of sociopathy.



I take a class in psychology bro





> Once you recognize that utilitarians are very rational the vast majority of the time they are prone to not having arrest records, or ever having been considered to have an unsound mind until _after the fact_, at which point it all becomes _post hoc_ rationalizations.





 Symptoms such as anti-socialism will be checked into regardless by any concerned parent.  The person will be see if they're diagnosed with any such diagnosis and that'll lead too them to be one of the people unfit for a firearm.


----------



## Bryan Paulsen (Dec 18, 2012)

drache said:


> ^
> 
> you can control guns and access though



Two-fold issue:

#1) There is no logical defense to the idea that the State and its agents should be able to own whatever they want, but the average individual should not.

#2) Controlling guns does nothing to those with criminal intent unless you catch them _before_ they act with their illegally acquired firearm.


----------



## Bender (Dec 18, 2012)




----------



## Stygian (Dec 18, 2012)

Bender said:


> lol lol lol lol
> 
> Did you actually reference Faux news? You actually referenced FAUX NEWS.



It was a humorous skit.


----------



## Stygian (Dec 18, 2012)

Re-post from a few pages back:


----------



## Stygian (Dec 18, 2012)

Here's an example of the failure of a handgun ban put in place in the UK as a response to a school shooting similar to Sandy Hook: 

The list goes on.


----------



## SubtleObscurantist (Dec 18, 2012)

Took me forever to actually post this, but Bender keeps teaching me new things! Today I learned that kids and relatives always break into gun safes. Yesterday I learned that pistols aren't semi-automatic, shotguns aren't used for hunting or sporting, both are assaults weapons, and pistols were the only weapon the colonial public used during the American War of Independence. I look forward to learning how the government is going to track all guns (both those on and off the record) to their owners, force all the gun owners to submit to psychological evaluation or give up their guns, force them to hand their guns over to a community safe, prevent illegal transfers of guns, and enforce their mandates. 

In times like these after a shooting like Newtown, doing anything whatsoever must be better than doing nothing and we need visionaries like this to give us a crystal clear vision for how to solve all school shootings. If we can crush the guns here, all knowledge of explosives and other highly deadly weapons will disappear at once. But we need moral courage: the kind which virtually no people have. Only the elite few who can see exactly what is wrong with absolute certainty and know that the best method of problem solving is to pass massive, sweeping legislation on the federal level and keep trying with that until something works. And who better than Bender, whose moral greatness is so divine that the first time he ever layed his hands on a gun, he knew instinctively that this was a tool of evil and he was at once sick to his stomach upon firing this mass murdering, terrible, and useless thing.

In fact, so great is my faith in the power of Bender and those like him, I won't even ask how such legislation could conceivably come to pass in the United States. For I am so humbled by the powerful imagination at work here that I have no doubt that such forward thinking can defeat the defeatist outlook that laws don't necessarily work.  He will lead a righteous crusade against those wicked gun owners who love guns more than the children. _The children! _ This crusade shall be done in the name of the people and the children and against the crazies who buy militaristic, macho stuff because they are delusional and want to kill lots of people. And once it is done, we shall all be protected by the law alone, and our benevolent representatives will guide us towards a more enlightened society. People who care about and like the _right_ sort of things.


----------



## Mintaka (Dec 18, 2012)

Personally I will never feel safe unless I have my M388 Davy Crockett with me.


----------



## Bender (Dec 18, 2012)

@SubtleObscurantist

THANK YOU



> Today I learned that kids and relatives always break into gun safes.



See I told you folks I TOLD YOU.

It is not safe to keep any of your goddamn guns  in the house. 

@Stygian

Faux is hilarity. By which I mean the entire Network for failing so goddamn hard at everything they say or do.

Also U.K's deaths from guns is a great deal more reduced than ours have ever been.


----------



## Bryan Paulsen (Dec 18, 2012)

Bender said:


> I take a class in psychology bro
> 
> Symptoms such as anti-socialism will be checked into regardless by any concerned parent.  The person will be see if they're diagnosed with any such diagnosis and that'll lead too them to be one of the people unfit for a firearm.



Sigh. For fuck's sake, you still don't get it.

Anti-social behavior doesn't always manifest itself consistently enough that it will be noticed by even the closest of relatives, ie: parents, or by trained professionals. Most of the time a sociopath acts bystanders will only acquire an understanding of the condition through _post hoc_ means. It's not like to become a mass murderer (hell, or even just a murderer) you need to take a course in torturing kitties at a major university.

Read the study, take to heart the implications. Utilitarianism is a valid means of solving moral dilemmas. The study indicates that a sociopath may very well use a thoroughly rational means of solving moral dilemmas, and therefore would show no indications that they are a potential murderer.

As an aside, I had an argument with a self-proclaimed Marxist awhile ago in which he defended the murder of Afghani children via drones because it represented his self-interests. This is anti-social utilitarian reasoning, and some people on this very forum can be seen arguing that such a thing is acceptable. These people wouldn't be considered insane due to arriving at such a conclusion via rational means, either, and people would only take note of the strain of sociopathy _after_ one of those individuals went and killed someone.

Until we find a way to read minds sociopaths will slip through the cracks. And even then they might become a sociopath _later_. There is no perfect solution, and reactionary methods that involve the State will not markedly improve the problem.


----------



## SubtleObscurantist (Dec 18, 2012)

Bryan, the term that fits the sociopathic moral system is egoism. Both utilitarianism and egoism are branches of the consequentialist school of ethics, but while utilitarianism holds the ends to be the greatest happiness to the greatest number and the least pain to the great number, egoism holds that view only when applied to oneself.


----------



## Bender (Dec 18, 2012)

Bryan Paulsen said:


> Sigh. For fuck's sake, you still don't get it.
> 
> Anti-social behavior doesn't always manifest itself consistently enough that it will be noticed by even the closest of relatives, ie: parents, or by trained professionals. Most of the time a sociopath acts bystanders will only acquire an understanding of the condition through _post hoc_ means. It's not like to become a mass murderer (hell, or even just a murderer) you need to take a course in torturing kitties at a major university.



If someone can hide an anti-social personality all the way to age you're allowed to personally carry a firearm than will the law enacted be considered pointless. A person with an unstable personality will most likely also still commit criminal acts. A person has to have a clean record with no actions on violence and so.



> As an aside, I had an argument with a self-proclaimed Marxist awhile ago in which he defended the murder of Afghani children via drones because it represented his self-interests.



Here's the thing though bro, I'm no marxist.


----------



## Stygian (Dec 18, 2012)

Bender said:


> @Stygian
> 
> Faux is hilarity. By which I mean the entire Network for failing so goddamn hard at everything they say or do.



Of course it is hilarity. Hence why I posted it. 



> Also U.K's deaths from guns is a great deal more reduced than ours have ever been.



Which hasn't been a result of their ban on handguns, as clearly illustrated in the article posted. Handgun crime rate INCREASED because of it.
So while you may have lower handgun deaths in the UK, it is NOT a result of the legislation, punching a hole straight through your argument.


----------



## Bender (Dec 18, 2012)

Stygian said:


> Of course it is hilarity. Hence why I posted it.



I meant hilarity in the sense it's sad.



> Which hasn't been a result of their ban on handguns, as clearly illustrated in the article posted. Handgun crime rate INCREASED because of it.






> So while you may have lower handgun deaths in the UK, it is NOT a result of the legislation, punching a hole straight through your argument.



It still isn't as bad as what we're dealing with. Regardless of how the ban was not the cause the effect is that there aren't people dishing out projections of their insanity with the handguns that are sold.


----------



## Stygian (Dec 18, 2012)

More articles: 



I can go on.


----------



## Stygian (Dec 18, 2012)

Bender said:


> I meant hilarity in the sense it's sad.



Your point being?






> It still isn't as bad as what we're dealing with. Regardless of how the ban was not the cause the effect is that there aren't people dishing out projections of their insanity with the handguns that are sold.



So you don't deny that their gun control measures have completely failed, yet still try to play it as if it would help in the United States?
You're deep in denial.


----------



## drache (Dec 18, 2012)

Bryan Paulsen said:


> Two-fold issue:
> 
> #1) There is no logical defense to the idea that the State and its agents should be able to own whatever they want, but the average individual should not.



so bring on the rocket launchers!



Bryan Paulsen said:


> #2) Controlling guns does nothing to those with criminal intent unless you catch them _before_ they act with their illegally acquired firearm.



strawman


----------



## Bender (Dec 18, 2012)

@Stygian

Chicago never was the ideal city of harmony

Regardless of it all, there aren't repetitive mass shootings in schools.


----------



## Bryan Paulsen (Dec 18, 2012)

Bender said:


> If someone can hide an anti-social personality all the way to age you're allowed to personally carry a firearm than will the law enacted be considered pointless. A person with an unstable personality will most likely also still commit criminal acts. A person has to have a clean record with no actions on violence and so.



That's the point. It would be pointless to think mental health checks would necessarily achieve much, and felons are already unable to legally acquire guns as far as I know. You can try closing loopholes, but they're going to use the black market anyway.

You can add them to background checks, et al, and there's still going to be outliers that get through. It's unavoidable.


----------



## Bender (Dec 18, 2012)

Stygian said:


> So you don't deny that their gun control measures have completely failed, yet still try to play it as if it would help in the United States?You're deep in denial.



Where the hell have I said that? Where? Never that's right. Moreover that article is so outdated it isn't even funny. It's from 2010 not 2012:

Read and meet:


----------



## Mider T (Dec 18, 2012)

Why is Chicago's gun homicide rate so high to begin with?  Could it be because it's illegal to own firearms there?


----------



## Bender (Dec 18, 2012)

@ Bryan Paulsen




> You can add them to background checks, et al, and there's still going to be outliers that get through. It's unavoidable.



That's nothing but a conjecture. There's no proof of this happening.


----------



## Stygian (Dec 18, 2012)

Bender said:


> @Stygian
> 
> Chicago never was the ideal city of harmony



The United States was never the ideal country of harmony. :/



> Regardless of it all, there aren't repetitive mass shootings in schools.



There was a mass shooting in the UK last year. Not in a school mind you, but a mass shooting none the less.


----------



## Stygian (Dec 18, 2012)

Bender said:


> Where the hell have I said that? Where? Never that's right.



Then why are you pushing for gun control to be implemented when you know of it's utter failures and now won't even admit to saying it would work, you dense monkey?




> Moreover that article is so outdated it isn't even funny. It's from 2010 not 2012:
> 
> Read and meet:



Which isn't an example of gun controls effectiveness. Your point = nonexistent.


----------



## Bender (Dec 18, 2012)

Stygian said:


> Then why are you pushing for gun control to be implemented when you know of it's utter failures and now won't even admit to saying it would work, you dense monkey?



You provided a source which noted what happened in 2010. This is 2012 what's the murder rate looking like now in Chicago?





> Which isn't an example of gun controls effectiveness. Your point = nonexistent.



Like I said about Chicago: not ideal state of harmony

Same with the U.S. 

Gun control will provide decency in the rates of deaths.


----------



## Mider T (Dec 18, 2012)

So why would you even use that example?  Jesus Christ you are absolutely TERRIBLE at debating, just stop embarrassing yourself already.


----------



## Bryan Paulsen (Dec 18, 2012)

Bender said:


> @ Bryan Paulsen
> 
> That's nothing but a conjecture. There's no proof of this happening.



There's no proof that what you want would put a stop to said tragedies.

My position brings an understanding of the human condition to the problem. Yours is based on idealistic thinking. It's not hard to see which one wins out.


----------



## Bender (Dec 18, 2012)

@Mider T

And you're providing absolutely wonderful contributions to this debate aren't you.

@Bryan Paulsen

How is mine idealistic thinking?

You haven't divulged incidents of people getting past verifiers of medical history, criminal records and presenting forged written reports to purchase deadly weapons.


----------



## SubtleObscurantist (Dec 18, 2012)

Stygian said:


> There was a mass shooting in the UK last year. Not in a school mind you, but a mass shooting none the less.



For that matter, mass shootings in school were _never_ that common in the UK compared to the US. Never even close.


----------



## Stygian (Dec 18, 2012)

Bender said:


> You provided a source which noted what happened in 2010. This is 2012 what's the murder rate looking like now in Chicago?



Less, after police crackdown on gangs. THAT'S NOT GUN CONTROL.
It's like your reading comprehension drops ever 5 minutes or something, holy Christ.





> Like I said about Chicago: not ideal state of harmony
> 
> Same with the U.S.
> 
> Gun control will provide decency in the rates of deaths.



Except it won't.
You keep spewing the same tired, recycled arguments, and going in circles despite the fact that it's all already been shut down; are you even listening to yourself?

You're like a baby.


----------



## Mider T (Dec 18, 2012)

Bender said:


> @Mider T
> 
> And you're providing absolutely wonderful contributions to this debate aren't you.
> 
> ...



If you can't understand "just stop" how do you expect people to take you seriously enough for complex ideas?


----------



## Bender (Dec 18, 2012)

Stygian said:


> Less, after police crackdown on gangs. THAT'S NOT GUN CONTROL.
> It's like your reading comprehension drops ever 5 minutes or something, holy Christ.



The reason firearms are a majority among gangmembers is because they don't go out buying new ones they're able to keep a large stash of them. In the same way they keep their drugs.

 The drop in the murder rate suggests the drug gangs are organizing to increase profits and reduce violence. As with prohibition gangsters, when the product became legal, the killing greatly decreased. Present day Chicago shooting deaths are casualties in a war over drug turf. 

Hell my cousin who lives out in Chicago city can attest to that.




> Except it won't.*You keep spewing the same tired, recycled arguments, and going in circles despite the fact that it's all already been shut down; are you even listening to yourself?*



The same is said of your arguments


----------



## warp drive (Dec 18, 2012)

Soldaun said:


> You stated there was a tremendous flow of semi and fully auto weapons, a flow would imply transferring, aka selling and purchasing of said firearms.



Which there exist,
Notwithstanding the over 200 million handguns legally sold, there are over 100 million long guns legally own for purely ?entertaining? purposes. While a fully automatic firearm is difficult to obtain and constitute a small minority, its immoral possession is legally accessible. Most terrifyingly, however, there is no federal law on the limitation of ammunition. At such, even a semi-automatic handgun with vast ammunition can be as deadly as a fully automatic long gun as was the case in the Virginia Tech shooting with 32 murdered and 17 wounded. If the distribution of fully automatic firearms (!), semi-automatic long guns, and unlimited ammunition would be made federally illegal, domestic terrorists like James E. Holmes or Adam P. Lanza would not have committed carnage at the large scale. These weapons are unnecessary in a civil society just for the sake of amusement; the joy of many is not worth the risk of a single massacre. If one wants protection, one should legally obtain a semi-automatic handgun with a maximum capacity of ten bullets?nothing more nothing less! As for the massive hoard of long guns, fully automatic firearms, and excessive ammunition in Americans hand at the moment, the next massacre can be prevented or minimized if these death machines are eternally secure or dispense to the feds. 

Guns do not kill people, but guns make it easy to complete massacre?the greater the power of the gun and the number of ammunition, the greater the massacre. Restriction on these carnage machines is fundamental for a civil civilization.


----------



## Bryan Paulsen (Dec 18, 2012)

Bender said:


> How is mine idealistic thinking?
> 
> You haven't divulged incidents of people getting past verifiers of medical history, criminal records and presenting forged written reports to purchase deadly weapons.



Where the hell did "forged written reports" come from?

_Criminals are already disallowed gun ownership_. 

This is about the medical history. If you read the study I linked you to, you would quickly realize it wouldn't do jack shit beyond catching the people that have been committed before, or on psychiatric meds. A current psychiatric evaluation is unlikely to catch anyone, and just creates additional costs for people desiring to purchase guns.

Run all the background checks you like, make them as stringent as you like, and people are still going to get through.

That's been the point the entire time. You still don't fucking get it, obviously.

Never minding the fact these sociopaths can always acquire them illegally, anyway!


----------



## Bender (Dec 18, 2012)

Bryan Paulsen said:


> Where the hell did "forged written reports" come from?
> 
> _Criminals are already disallowed gun ownership_.



I mean those who are arrested for things such as assault or battery but doesn't lead to full-on conviction.



> This is about the medical history. If you read the study I linked you to, you would quickly realize it wouldn't do jack shit beyond catching the people that have been committed before, or on psychiatric meds. A current psychiatric evaluation is unlikely to catch anyone, and just creates additional costs for people desiring to purchase guns.



Which is why we should make sure to petition for a more thorough medical history background check.


----------



## Stygian (Dec 19, 2012)

Bender said:


> The reason firearms are a majority among gangmembers is because they don't go out buying new ones they're able to keep a large stash of them. In the same way they keep their drugs.



Which is exactly why attempts to ban guns DON'T WORK. *You've just blatantly admitted it!*
I don't even have to continue this discussion with you, *BECAUSE YOU YOURSELF HAVE JUST INADVERTENTLY SHOWN THE EXACT REASON WHY GUN CONTROL DOESN'T WORK.*
There's literally nothing left to be said.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Dec 19, 2012)

That doesn't make sense Bender, you can't keep a large stash of drugs. After you use them, they're expended. This isn't internet piracy.


----------



## Bender (Dec 19, 2012)

@CTK

I mean before they use em. The ones they plan on selling to druggies. 

@Stygian

What the hell are you talking about? I didn't admit shit! I said, "they're keeping the guns they haven't yet used". I even said pages ago about how it'd be difficult to take firearms from people who are already in possession of them. The ridding of heavy assault weapons like the ones criminal gangbangers possess depends on law-enforcement's cracking down on criminals/organized crime.


----------



## Stygian (Dec 19, 2012)

Bender said:


> @Stygian
> 
> What the hell are you talking about? I didn't admit shit! I said, "they're keeping the guns they haven't yet used". I even said pages ago about how it'd be difficult to take firearms from people who are already in possession of them. The ridding of heavy assault weapons like the ones criminal gangbangers possess depends on law-enforcement's cracking down on criminals/organized crime.



Lol. Back-tracking out of desperation? Smooth.

You've just lost the argument, bro, it's over. Man-up and face it.


----------



## Bender (Dec 19, 2012)

@Stygian

lol backtracking my fucking ass. I'm clarifying what I said. You heavily misinterpreted what I said.


----------



## Stygian (Dec 19, 2012)

Bender said:


> @Stygian
> 
> lol backtracking my fucking ass. I'm clarifying what I said. You heavily misinterpreted what I said.



You're not clarifying anything, your deliberately attempting to CHANGE what you said and now you're saying anything you can to try and twist it.
Denial isn't just a river in Egypt.


----------



## Bender (Dec 19, 2012)

How am I changing what I said? I'm providing emphasis what I meant when I say criminals have stacks of their firearms, not saying they're able to get a hold 'em despite change in gun laws


----------



## Stygian (Dec 19, 2012)

Bender said:


> How am I changing what I said? I'm providing emphasis what I meant when I say criminals have stacks of their firearms, not saying they're able to get a hold 'em despite change in gun laws



>Criminals have stacks of firearms
>Gun control makes things worse because criminals still have their weapons and law abiding citizens have less
>Criminals begin to sell their large cache's of firearms on the black market because of massive increase in demand caused by new laws
>Gun control has failed to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and killings continue and rise
>Bender can't come to grips with the fact that he has just inadvertently pointed all of this out

Yeah... you kind of fell on your own sword there.


----------



## Rescuebear (Dec 19, 2012)

Lots of unlawful guns would eventually be taken out of the system when found by police.



> Gun control makes things worse because criminals still have their weapons and law abiding citizens have less



Law abiding citizens would still be allowed guns given they follow the rules, criminals would lose there guns.


----------



## Bender (Dec 19, 2012)

@Stygian

There is no indication that Chicago Illinois street gangs are that big or sell firearms. Unless you divulge that evidence it's your loss. Shit why any street gang in any city would do that since it means losing their own fire power is stupid.


----------



## Stygian (Dec 19, 2012)

Rescuebear said:


> Lots of unlawful guns would eventually be taken out of the system when found by police.



Yeah, and then trafficked by the government to Mexican cartels, or put into the hands of rebels in the Middle East. Lol




> Law abiding citizens would still be allowed guns given they follow the rules, criminals would lose there guns.



Depending on the guns you allow them to keep and the guns you remove, you might as well not even bother letting them keep any at all.
Criminals won't lose their guns; they still have them now, despite the fact that their illegally owned. What makes you think that that's going to change after more laws are passed?


----------



## Hossaim (Dec 19, 2012)

The US should adopt Canada's gun laws. 

Being Canadian living in the middle of a suburban metropolis, the worst news on the radio in the morning is either american or a robbery/assault/party crashed. and even those don't happen every day,


----------



## Stygian (Dec 19, 2012)

Bender said:


> @Stygian
> 
> There is no indication that Chicago Illinois street gangs are that big or sell firearms. Unless you divulge that evidence it's your loss.



You're backtracking again.
First you say they have stashes with stacks of guns and now you say they barely have any guns to go around. Make up your mind.




> Shit why any street gang in any city would do that since it means losing their own fire power is stupid.



So then they keep their power and the result is a net 0 change. Take your pick.


----------



## Rescuebear (Dec 19, 2012)

> Yeah, and then trafficked by the government to Mexican cartels, or put into the hands of rebels in the Middle East. Lol



US Govt failure to protect the guns it confiscates is a different issue.



> Depending on the guns you allow them to keep and the guns you remove, you might as well not even bother letting them keep any at all.



Depends for what, hunters will still be able to get rifles/shotguns for hunting. And for self defense you really only need a handgun.



> Criminals won't lose their guns; they still have them now, despite the fact that their illegally owned. What makes you think that that's going to change after more laws are passed?



This isn't an argument as to why gun laws shouldn't be put in place. Its seems to be an argument that says "well there are already too many guns in circulation to moderate properly so lets not even bother at all".


----------



## Stygian (Dec 19, 2012)

Rescuebear said:


> US Govt failure to protect the guns it confiscates is a different issue.



Agreed.





> Depends for what, hunters will still be able to get rifles/shotguns for hunting. And for self defense you really only need a handgun.



But you would ban semi-automatic rifles?
And what types of handguns are we talking about that you feel should remain for self defense, revolvers or auto-loaders?




> This isn't an argument as to why gun laws shouldn't be put in place. Its seems to be an argument that says "well there are already too many guns in circulation to moderate properly so lets not even bother at all".



It is an argument showing the failure of additional gun control measures.
The purpose of gun control is to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals who would use them to harm others; the problem is that it fails at doing that, therefore making gun control worthless.
If that's not reason enough to not waste the time with it, then I'd like you to tell me what is.


----------



## Griever (Dec 19, 2012)

Banning them isn't going to do anything, what people want, people get. And there will always be someone willing to do just about anything for the right price.

but that aside, guns aren't even the real problem here. the thing with these mass killings, the thing that makes these people so dangerous is not the guns, it's their mentality. They go in with the single objective of killing as many people as they can and they *do not care if they die in the process* i'm sure everyone has heard they saying about the "man who has nothing to loose" with that said. I fail to see how banning Assault rifles with get us anywhere quick, other than things staying just about the same with a few more thefts here and there.


----------



## LouDAgreat (Dec 19, 2012)

Tried so hard to avoid this debate, but I just can't anymore.



Griever said:


> Banning them isn't going to do anything, what people want, people get. And there will always be someone willing to do just about anything for the right price.



1. "Because criminals and the insane will get their hands on these guns we should keep them legal" Makes no sense at all.
2. We have police, the ATF and FBI to prevent illegal purchase of assault weapons. Put some faith in them and avoid your vigilante justice.
3. If we didn't have weapons or weapons manufactueres in this country in the first place, we wouldn't have to worry about loons shooting up places.



Griever said:


> but that aside, guns aren't even the real problem here. the thing with these mass killings, the thing that makes these people so dangerous is not the guns, it's their mentality. They go in with the single objective of killing as many people as they can and they _do not care if they die in the process_ i'm sure everyone has heard they saying about the "man who has nothing to loose" with that said. I fail to see how banning Assault rifles with get us anywhere quick, other than things staying just about the same with a few more thefts here and there.



Heavy assault rifles that were specifically designed to kill as many people as possible...are not the problem? 

heavy assult rifles that were specifically designed to kill as many people as possible...don't manke insane people's goals easier to achieve? 

you're delusion if you don't think guns have empowered criminals to commit these crimes. These guns can do more to kill a person than a slash of a knife, swing of a bat, or or use of any other blunt instrument. 

It'll take time to get rid of 300 million assult rifles that currently exist in the U.S it'll be even harder when you have 100 million asshole citizens that are unwilling to cooperate and get rid of guns.


----------



## Waking Dreamer (Dec 19, 2012)

Stygian said:


> Depending on the guns you allow them to keep and the guns you remove, you might as well not even bother letting them keep any at all.
> 
> Criminals won't lose their guns; they still have them now, despite the fact that their illegally owned. What makes you think that that's going to change after more laws are passed?



What are the statistics of legally own guns stopping violent crime and gun crime in general?

Is self-defense with a firearm_ rare_ in comparison to gun crime anyway?


----------



## LouDAgreat (Dec 19, 2012)

"It's not the gun that kills, it's the gunman"

It's not the car that drives you to point B to point A, it's the driver
It's not the rocketship that takes you to the moon, it's the astronaut. 
It's not the boat that gets you across the ocean, it's captain


----------



## Stygian (Dec 19, 2012)

Waking Dreamer said:


> What are the statistics of legally own guns stopping violent crime and gun crime in general?
> 
> Is self-defense with a firearm_ rare_ in comparison to gun crime anyway?




"According to the National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994, *the rate of Defensive Gun Uses can be projected nationwide to approximately 2.5 million per year -- one Defensive Gun Use every 13 seconds.*

Among 15.7% of gun defenders interviewed nationwide during The National Self Defense Survey, the defender believed that someone "almost certainly" would have died had the gun not been used for protection --* a life saved by a privately held gun about once every 1.3 minutes.* (In another 14.2% cases, the defender believed someone "probably" would have died if the gun hadn't been used in defense.)"

Source: 
Keep in mind this is quite dated though. I'll try to find more recent statistics.


----------



## Waking Dreamer (Dec 19, 2012)

Stygian said:


> "According to the National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994, *the rate of Defensive Gun Uses can be projected nationwide to approximately 2.5 million per year -- one Defensive Gun Use every 13 seconds.*
> 
> Among 15.7% of gun defenders interviewed nationwide during The National Self Defense Survey, the defender believed that someone "almost certainly" would have died had the gun not been used for protection --* a life saved by a privately held gun about once every 1.3 minutes.* (In another 14.2% cases, the defender believed someone "probably" would have died if the gun hadn't been used in defense.)"
> 
> Source:



Well, yeah...but that was 18 years ago though.  

Here's something I came across about statistics of fire-arm self defence and gun crime:



> A 2011 study published in the _American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine_ reported that:
> *Overall, the limited data on self-defence gun use suggest that (a) genuine self-defence gun use is rare, (b) there are many ways that people defend themselves without a gun, and (c) many of these other methods may be as effective as self-defence gun use in preventing injury. *
> 
> Perhaps surprisingly, the evidence does not indicate that having a gun reduces the risk of being a victim of a crime or that having a gun reduces the risk of injury during the commission of a crime.1
> ...


----------



## Stygian (Dec 19, 2012)

The last source I posted was pretty dated.

FBI justifiable homicide statistics:


----------



## Bryan Paulsen (Dec 19, 2012)

drache said:


> so bring on the rocket launchers!



The State has provided those to foreign nationals before, but you're left wondering why we're not good enough to own them.

I'm waiting for a logical defense. You're disappointing me.



> strawman



Until said individual with an illegally owned firearm attempts to use it. It's one of those pesky strawmen that tend to happen in real life regularly enough for it to be a consideration.


----------



## Bryan Paulsen (Dec 19, 2012)

Bender said:


> I mean those who are arrested for things such as assault or battery but doesn't lead to full-on conviction.



That's a stupid area to choose to draw a line in the sand. Getting charged with something doesn't mean you're guilty, and having that be grounds for disallowance of firearm ownership is flat-out stupid.

Apparently innocent until proven guilty is a very dead concept. Yeesh.

Conviction should absolutely be required. Period. Especially with the bullshit cops like to get away with in passing their abuse of power off as the suspect "resisting arrest" when all they "resisted" was the cop's foot with their skull.



> Which is why we should make sure to petition for a more thorough medical history background check.



Even if you get it... a significant percentage of the military is on psychiatric medication, and they've got access to shit we can't even _dream_ of owning.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1812055,00.html

Good luck figuring out where you're going to draw the line in the sand with that. The best you've got going for you is you might catch people that have been in an asylum before.

That said, I'm fine with background checks being required and they can be very thorough. They just won't come even close to catching all of the potential murderers. People need to prepare a contingency in case someone slips by, because the State can't hold your hand through all of life's difficulties.


----------



## LouDAgreat (Dec 19, 2012)

Bryan Paulson said:
			
		

> The State has provided those to foreign nationals before, but you're left wondering why we're not good enough to own them.
> 
> I'm waiting for a logical defense. You're disappointing me.



Maybe because those foreign nationals were fighting civil wars with leaders the United States wanted to dispose of? Or maybe the U.S was fighting proxy wars with rival nation states? Is that what the U.S is? A civil war zone?

Regardless of what the reason is, you actually  want to see rocket launchers in the hands of every private citizen? You want t osee highly explosive devices and arms proliferated like handguns? I mean where the fuck do you draw the line? There is no line. 

I'm sure you'd be perfectly content with nuclear armed private citizens with their own ICBM caches.


----------



## Bryan Paulsen (Dec 19, 2012)

LouDAgreat said:


> Maybe because those foreign nationals were fighting civil wars with leaders the United States wanted to dispose of? Or maybe the U.S was fighting proxy wars with rival nation states? Is that what the U.S is? A civil war zone?



None of that is a logical defense of why the State is entitled to them and the individual the State supposedly represents is not. Period.

It is not logically possible to say the individual is not entitled to something, but that the State (supposedly representing the collective, a large group of individuals) is. If you want to assert that the State has an inherent right to special privileges not afforded to the individual, then I ask you where you derive those rights.



> Regardless of what the reason is, you actually  want to see rocket launchers in the hands of every private citizen? You want t osee highly explosive devices and arms proliferated like handguns? I mean where the fuck do you draw the line? There is no line.



I want to see the elimination of the haves versus the have-nots. That matters more than anything else you can attempt to insert into the equation. A truly national militia would serve this purpose better than anything else, but the State is definitely not interested in a populace that armed (well, Switzerland probably does this better than anyone, but even they aren't perfect).



> I'm sure you'd be perfectly content with nuclear armed private citizens with their own ICBM caches.



Conflating nuclear weaponry with guns (of all varieties) is intellectually disingenuous. The former will always be owned by a collective and not an individual by virtue of what it is, and how it is used.

Nukes, like mines, like bombs, will always see severe regulation as a result of being a collectivist tool required for national defense.


----------



## LouDAgreat (Dec 19, 2012)

Bryan Paulson said:
			
		

> None of that is a logical defense of why the State is entitled to them and the individual the State supposedly represents is not. Period.



The State as a representative of all society, defends itself and the individuals it serves. The individual on his own can cause more harm to others and hisself if charged with the duties of defense. It's a dangerous redundancy that impedes the duties of the state. With every individual obtaining arms, there is in affect a civilian arms proliferation, each citizen obtaining more dangerous arms to counter the arms of criminals and other crazed civilians. This is a degradation of the quality of life for all citizens. We become more like a war town African country than a peaceful United States. 



			
				bryan Paulson said:
			
		

> It is not logically possible to say the individual is not entitled to something, but that the State (supposedly representing the collective, a large group of individuals) is. If you want to assert that the State has an inherent right to special privileges not afforded to the individual, then I ask you where you derive those rights.



Amazing how you see access to weapons of mass destruction as a right. Would you like access to Anthrax? To Siren Gas? This isn't a rights issue. A public health and safety issue. In that case you have limited rights. Its the duty of the State to ensure the health and safety of all, and not guarantee some petty right to fulfill your sick gun fetish. 

The State= Society= Everyone > Individual. As a representative of everybody, the state INHERENTLY has privileges the individual doesn't. Those rights derive from society's desire to better everyone and the individual. The State derives it's rights not just from idealistic philosophy, but from experience, from what's measurable as good governance. 



			
				Bryan Paulson said:
			
		

> I want to see the elimination of the haves versus the have-nots. That matters more than anything else you can attempt to insert into the equation. A truly national militia would serve this purpose better than anything else, but the State is definitely not interested in a populace that armed (well, Switzerland probably does this better than anyone).



Your government is ELECTED BY YOU on a regular basis. The military, the police, they come amongst the people swearing to protect the people..ALL THE PEOPLE, not just those who are elected to power. Your government is chosen by you and your fellow citizens. Have a little trust in your people and your government. If you don't trust them, you don't trust yourself nor your fellow citizen. If you say its right to not trust your government elected by fellow citizens, then you live in a sad sad paranoid world. Turn your back at every corner. You might as well live on a battlefield. Well, that's the mentality I get from gun advocates.



			
				Bryan Paulson said:
			
		

> Conflating nuclear weaponry with guns (of all varieties) is intellectually disingenuous. The former will always be owned by a collective and not an individual by virtue of what it is.
> 
> Nukes, like mines, like bombs, will always see severe regulation as a result of being a collectivist tool required for national defense that indiscriminately kill upon usage.



Oh whats that, conflating nuclear weaponry with guns is intellectually disingenuous? What ever happened to the elimination of the havs and have nots? Whatever happened to the  the "national militia"? Aren't they supposed to have nukes too? 

Now, why all of a sudden to you bring collective ownership of nukes, but no collective ownership of guns? In every sense, regardless of their level of destruction, they are all killing devices with the intent...KILL. How does an AK-47 not kill indiscriminately as a nuke?


----------



## LouDAgreat (Dec 19, 2012)

Wonder what laws are like across the country. Looks like the gun laws in Connecticut aren't strict enough. Don't want to get a background check? You don't get a fucking gun.


----------



## Bryan Paulsen (Dec 19, 2012)

Foreword: In my entire life I have not seen arguments in favor of the State so utterly bereft of logic as what follows.



LouDAgreat said:


> The State as a representative of all society, defends itself and the individuals it serves. The individual on his own can cause more harm to others and hisself if charged with the duties of defense. It's a dangerous redundancy that impedes the duties of the state.



The individual acting in his own self-interest, namely that of self-defense, can cause more harm to others and hi(m)self if charged with the duties of defense than the State?

Firstly, that doesn't make sense because complex organisms (the State) will always be less efficient than simple organisms (the individual), meaning redundancy would naturally follow from the former and not the latter.

Secondly, the "duties of the State" do not logically supercede the "duties of the individual".



> With every individual obtaining arms, there is in affect a civilian arms proliferation, each citizen obtaining more dangerous arms to counter the arms of criminals and other crazed civilians. This is a degradation of the quality of life for all citizens. We become more like a war town African country than a peaceful United States.



The State is not responsible for individual self defense, civilians have *always* been responsible for their own defense against criminals - law enforcement is primarily reactionary, it is not an effective prophylactic. There is no philosophical or logical basis to your notion it is the State's responsibility more than the individual's.



> Amazing how you see access to weapons of mass destruction as a right. Would you like access to Anthrax? To Siren Gas? This isn't a rights issue. A public health and safety issue. In that case you have limited rights. Its the duty of the State to ensure the health and safety of all, and not guarantee some petty right to fulfill your sick gun fetish.



Weapons of mass destruction would be regulated even in the absence of a State. It's a non-issue. The purpose and usage of a weapon of mass destruction and a gun aren't the same.



> The State= Society= Everyone > Individual. As a representative of everybody, the state INHERENTLY has privileges the individual doesn't. Those rights derive from society's desire to better everyone and the individual. The State derives it's rights not just from idealistic philosophy, but from experience, from what's measurable as good governance.



Ah, a dyed-in-the-wool Authoritarian Socialist argument. An entity cannot both claim to represent someone and have privileges denied to those they represent, unless said entity is part of a ruling class divorced from everyone else. You are, apparently, one of those useful idiots that thinks of themself as a serf that does the State's bidding if it is supposed to better everyone.

Good intentions are not the basis of rights. Not logically, not philosophically, and not practically.



> Your government is ELECTED BY YOU on a regular basis. The military, the police, they come amongst the people swearing to protect the people..ALL THE PEOPLE, not just those who are elected to power. Your government is chosen by you and your fellow citizens. *Have a little trust in your people and your government. If you don't trust them, you don't trust yourself nor your fellow citizen.* If you say its right to not trust your government elected by fellow citizens, then you live in a sad sad paranoid world. Turn your back at every corner. You might as well live on a battlefield. Well, that's the mentality I get from gun advocates.



My government is not "elected by me" when I vote for someone that loses. It's another illogical argument in a long line of illogical arguments you've put forth. Furthermore, I am subject to a "social contract" that I never signed, and have no say in.

I have bolded what is the most asinine thing I think I've read on this forum today, which is saying something because I've been arguing with _Bender_. If someone honestly believes that trust should be invested in the government, an entity with a monopoly on force, to such a degree that distrust merits distrust in oneself and their fellow civilians, then they are wholly irrational.

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." - J. Dalberg-Acton

Quite obviously you don't have a single fucking shred of understanding of human history, or you'd never be caught writing such stupid shit. The government is corrupt, and you couldn't _possibly_ attempt to put together a case that it isn't.

I also get to turn this back on you - you ask to "have a little trust in your people and your government", but you do not trust those same people to responsibly handle dangerous items. However, when they are a State-sponsored individual you magically about-face and have a theistic level of trust and belief in their benevolence, never minding that it's still, ultimately, just an individual.

I have a higher level of trust in the individuals that live in this country than you could ever _dream_ of having, as witnessed by your paranoia surrounding the possibility of certain things being legal to own by individuals.

I trust civilians. I absolutely do not trust the State. They should _never_ be conflated as synonymous, because to assert as such would be to assert that civilians endorse all the unethical shit the State does like torture, abuse of power, and drone strikes.



> Oh whats that, conflating nuclear weaponry with guns is intellectually disingenuous? What ever happened to the elimination of the havs and have nots? Whatever happened to the  the "national militia"? Aren't they supposed to have nukes too?



The collective ownership of a nuke would be precisely that - collective. State ownership of a nuke is exclusive. There is a marked difference. When you admitted the State is greater than the individual, and that they have special rights, you summarily dismissed ever being part of a collective that owns a nuke. In short, you have no say in what the State does with any of its weaponry.



> Now, why all of a sudden to you bring collective ownership of nukes, but no collective ownership of guns? In every sense, regardless of their level of destruction, they are all killing devices with the intent...KILL. How does an AK-47 not kill indiscriminately as a nuke?



An AK-47 can fulfill a specific defensive purpose against unwarranted aggression against one's person. A nuke, as a weapon of mass destruction, cannot possibly hope to achieve such an aim.

You have to wonder about any individual's grasp of logic when they attempt to treat an AK-47 and a nuclear weapon as synonymous.


----------



## Pliskin (Dec 19, 2012)

Bryan Paulsen said:


> An AK-47 can fulfill a specific defensive purpose against unwarranted aggression against one's person. A nuke, as a weapon of mass destruction, cannot possibly hope to achieve such an aim.
> 
> You have to wonder about any individual's grasp of logic when they attempt to treat an AK-47 and a nuclear weapon as synonymous.



"Leave me alone or I WILL nuke us all to hell." Done.


----------



## SubtleObscurantist (Dec 19, 2012)

Oh, and Lou, the argument goes, "trust the police, ATF, and FBI" to stop criminals from acquiring illegal weapons. 

I am curious. How has that been going for you?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Dec 19, 2012)

The President was just on TV talking sensibly. More liberals need to learn from his cues.


----------



## navy (Dec 19, 2012)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> The President was just on TV talking sensibly. More liberals need to learn from his cues.



They will just accuse him of being a traitor, not progressive enough, conservative as usual...


----------



## Hero of Shadows (Dec 19, 2012)

navy said:


> They will just accuse him of being a traitor, not progressive enough, conservative as usual...



Well Obama would be conservative in any other place but the USA.


----------



## Bryan Paulsen (Dec 19, 2012)

Pliskin said:


> "Leave me alone or I WILL nuke us all to hell." Done.



A weapon that would, by definition of what it is, cause the death of innocent civilians upon usage does not qualify as a weapon fulfilling a specific defensive task.

Nukes would only ever be used in a moral manner in response to a collectivist threat, and even then their usage would be extremely tenuous at best (unlikely as it is for an entire population to support a collective).

It is possible to use an AK-47 in a moral manner. It is not possible to use a nuke in a moral manner. The only moral aggression is that which comes in response to aggression, namely defense.


----------



## Pliskin (Dec 19, 2012)

Bryan Paulsen said:


> A weapon that would, by definition of what it is, cause the death of innocent civilians upon usage does not qualify as a weapon fulfilling a specific defensive task.
> 
> Nukes would only ever be used in a moral manner in response to a collectivist threat, and even then their usage would be extremely tenuous at best (unlikely as it is for an entire population to support a collective).
> 
> It is possible to use an AK-47 in a moral manner. It is not possible to use a nuke in a moral manner. The only moral aggression is that which comes in response to aggression, namely defense.



While I agree I'd like to point out that one could easily count gun related killings as the innocent collateral of gun ownership.
Of course I did not want to say nukes should be accessible. The point I was trying to make is that eventually, a line has to be drawn what arms are to be accessible to the public and that this line is almost completely subjective (i.e. explosive traps could easily be used to fend of invaders without much risk to innocent lives).
I guess what I am trying to say is, both sides should aknowledge that they draw that line out of gut feeling, not so much out of reason.


----------



## Bryan Paulsen (Dec 19, 2012)

Pliskin said:


> While I agree I'd like to point out that one could easily count gun related killings as the innocent collateral of gun ownership.
> Of course I did not want to say nukes should be accessible. The point I was trying to make is that eventually, a line has to be drawn what arms are to be accessible to the public and that this line is almost completely subjective (i.e. explosive traps could easily be used to fend of invaders without much risk to innocent lives).
> I guess what I am trying to say is, both sides should aknowledge that they draw that line out of gut feeling, not so much out of reason.



You could just as well count slitting someone's throat as the "innocent collateral of knife ownership" - it doesn't make sense. Gun-related deaths are typically the result of humans using guns in the attempt to kill/maim other people, just as is the case with knife attacks.

Murder with any implement, fists included, is the result of unwarranted aggression against a person, and should be punished accordingly. If someone is attacked, pulls a gun in self-defense, and accidentally shoots someone else, then they should be charged with murder. Such is the weight of responsibility for someone seeing to their personal welfare, and the welfare of those around them. However, beyond all responsibilities the number one responsibility any person has is to look after their personal welfare, and so they should never be denied effective means of self-defense.

The question comes down to whether the usage of a given weapon inherently necessitates the destruction of innocents. If it does, then it fails to qualify as a moral means of self-defense. Nukes fail this criteria, guns do not.


----------



## Smiley (Dec 19, 2012)

Pliskin said:


> "Leave me alone or I WILL nuke us all to hell." Done.


 Equating self defence to suicide. 

Yes, this definitely refutes his point about loosely grasped logic.


----------



## Rivers (Dec 19, 2012)

Recent research suggests the risks of owning firearms in the homes outweighs the potential benefits.


----------



## Smiley (Dec 19, 2012)

Rivers said:


> Recent research suggests the risks of owning firearms in the homes outweighs the potential benefits.


 Recent research suggests that Santa Claus is real.


----------



## drache (Dec 19, 2012)

Bryan Paulsen said:


> The State has provided those to foreign nationals before, but you're left wondering why we're not good enough to own them.
> 
> I'm waiting for a logical defense. You're disappointing me.


 
I am not sure you'd know logic if it slapped you in the face.

Last I checked we're not fighting a war against our own government you fool. 

And what I am wondering is whether you're trolling or really believe the nonsense you just wrote.




Bryan Paulsen said:


> Until said individual with an illegally owned firearm attempts to use it. It's one of those pesky strawmen that tend to happen in real life regularly enough for it to be a consideration.


 
It's still a strawman


----------



## Rivers (Dec 19, 2012)

Smiley said:


> Recent research suggests that Santa Claus is real.



You have a source for that? 

Anyways,



> There are real and imaginary situations when it might be beneficial to have a gun in the home. For example, in the Australian film Mad Max, where survivors of the apocalypse seem to have been predominantly psychopathic male bikers, having a loaded gun would seem to be very helpful for survival, and public health experts would probably advise people in that world to obtain guns.
> 
> However, for most contemporary Americans, the scientific studies suggest that the health risk of a gun in the home is greater than the benefit. There are no credible studies that indicate otherwise. The evidence is overwhelming that a gun in the home is a risk factor for completed suicide and that gun accidents are most likely to occur in homes with guns. There is compelling evidence that a gun in the home is a risk factor for intimidation and for killing women in their homes, and it appears that a gun in the home may more likely be used to threaten intimates than to protect against intruders. On the potential benefit side, there is no good evidence of a deterrent effect of firearms or that a gun in the home reduces the likelihood or severity of injury during an altercation or break-in.
> 
> ...


_____________________________

"Risks and Benefits of a Gun in the Home", _American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine 2011_


----------



## drache (Dec 19, 2012)

Bryan Paulsen said:


> We're not fighting a war with other countries, either, dipshit, but our State does it anyway regardless of public opinion. If we are at war, then by all means present to me our country's declaration of war.
> 
> I'm still waiting for a logical defense to special State privileges to own weapons nobody else is entitled to, and why they can do whatever-the-fuck they want with them with no direct influence from the collective they supposedly represent.
> 
> There isn't one, so I'm not holding my breath.


 
I'm still waiting for you to realize there is no logical reason to own an RPG, machine gun, grenades or any of the other things civilians are not supposed to own and further that denying these weapons is entirely logical. Unless you want a repeat of the tommy gun but tehn again you very well might

There's nothing special here and if you think the people have no collective influence you're blind


----------



## Bryan Paulsen (Dec 19, 2012)

drache said:


> I'm still waiting for you to realize there is no logical reason to own an RPG, machine gun, grenades or any of the other things civilians are not supposed to own and further that denying these weapons is entirely logical. Unless you want a repeat of the tommy gun but tehn again you very well might



#1) Individuals inherently possess ownership of their being.
#2) As owners of being they are responsible for looking after their personal welfare.
#3) In the pursuit of self-welfare it is a rational pursuit to have the most effective means of self-defense available.

In short, I can establish a logical basis for owning weaponry for an individual. It forms a logical chain.

No such chain exists for the State.

Furthermore, extending the right of self-ownership would present the logical disallowance for why rocket launchers/nukes/bombs/mine would be a shitty choice for self-defense - they would subvert the self-ownership of unrelated individuals to unwarranted aggression.



> There's nothing special here and if you think the people have no collective influence you're blind



You have no say in what the State does with *any* of its weapons. Go up to a police station and demand they turn in any firearms that a citizen wouldn't be allowed to own. Hell, do it in a group of 10,000.

And you'll fail miserably, because you have no control over the matter. You are powerless, left to console yourself with the hope that the State is a benevolent deity.

Next time you file taxes you should file under the same tax-exempt provisions churches receive, because your theistic level of belief and devotion to the State can only be understood in that light.


----------



## Rivers (Dec 19, 2012)

Bryan Paulsen said:


> You have no say in what the State does with *any* of its weapons. Go up to a police station and demand they turn in any firearms that a citizen wouldn't be allowed to own. Hell, do it in a group of 10,000.
> 
> And you'll fail miserably, because you have no control over the matter. You are powerless, left to console yourself with the hope that the State is a benevolent deity.
> 
> Next time you file taxes you should file under the same tax-exempt provisions churches receive, because your theistic level of belief and devotion to the State can only be understood in that light.



So you're saying it *ONLY FAIR* that the your local Police Department SHOULDN'T be MORE ARMED than a civilian or basically yourself?


----------



## Bryan Paulsen (Dec 19, 2012)

Rivers said:


> So you're saying it *ONLY FAIR* that the your local Police Department SHOULDN'T be MORE ARMED than a civilian or basically yourself?



Yep.

Police do not require special armaments civilians are disallowed from owning. Their existence as a _reactionary_ force reinforces the point, and even the US Supreme Court has found that the police aren't responsible for personal safety (Castle Rock v. Gonzalez, South v. Maryland, Bowers v. DeVito). From the third case I just mentioned:



			
				Winning Opinion From Bowers v. DeVito said:
			
		

> "...there is no Constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen."



In light of this information only one conclusion can be drawn - individuals are responsible for their personal safety, and should maximize the resources available to them. Granting special access to weaponry for the police serves no functional purpose designed to enhance personal safety; rather, the only purpose served would be in capturing perpetrators.


----------



## Smiley (Dec 19, 2012)

Rivers said:


> You have a source for that?


Unfortunately I do not have a "source" which proves the existence of Santa Claus. Shame I can't just copy/paste a few paragraphs that someone wrote about him being real.

Do you have a source of objectivity within a mile radius of that subjective value judgement regarding what qualifies as a worthwhile risk, a worthwhile benefit, or... You know... Anything at all that isn't just someone's opinion with the word "research" slapped onto it?

The claim is ridiculous. There are hundreds of millions of guns in America but the related injuries are only counted in the thousands, many of which are the result of legitimate self defence and have saved more people than they have harmed.

Tell me, how does a few thousand injuries outbalance the hundreds of millions of firearms which cause no injuries? How exactly are you wrapping your head around these odds? The number of injuries compared to the number of guns is obscenely small. 

The statement that "the subjectively evaluated risks outweigh the subjectively evaluated benefits" not only lacks any trace of objectivity, but is patently false in the first place judging by the relative numbers alone.


----------



## LouDAgreat (Dec 19, 2012)

Bryan Paulson said:
			
		

> Foreword: In my entire life I have not seen arguments in favor of the State so utterly bereft of logic as what follows.



Never in my entire life have I seen such a delusional, selfish, self-centered egomaniac view of the world and government. To put oneself on the pedestal of existence and and to go no fuck whatsoever of the welfare of others. "Fuck You and Horray for Me" "The Hell with you and society, horray for me".   



			
				Bryan Paulson said:
			
		

> The individual acting in his own self-interest, namely that of self-defense, can cause more harm to others and hi(m)self if charged with the duties of defense than the State?



The individual goes above and beyond self defence when he acquires weapons of mass destruction. He's impeding in the duties of the state to protect citizens. Stop equating the ownership of Assult Weapons, Rocket Launchers, Tanks and Explosives as self-defence, Those weapons were created for the sole purpose of mass causalities. That's not self-defence that's overkill. Only the state should possess that power. Ownership of that kind of fire power is fucking idiotic, and callous. Only  deluded individuals hell bent on fulfilling a psychological fantasy for power would want such access.



			
				Bryan Paulson said:
			
		

> Firstly, that doesn't make sense because complex organisms (the State) will always be less efficient than simple organisms (the individual), meaning redundancy would naturally follow from the former and not the latter.



Bullshit, individuals can't possibly extract the most benefits by acting on their own. Even the individualist entrepreneur relies on his workers/employees to produce his product.  Farmers rely on his handmaids to extract and pick agricultural produce. The military relies on an organized, hierarchical leadership for effective protection. Regulators constantly watchover companies to make sure we don't get screwed. There is a symbiotic relationship between humans. We rely on others to help us out as we can't fucking do everything on our. What you say speaks against the entire evolutionary history of fucking humanity. Step outside your libertarian nutbox like I did and see the world from actual social interaction. 



			
				Bryan Paulson said:
			
		

> Secondly, the "duties of the State" do not logically supercede the "duties of the individual".



Only by your bizarro logic it does not. The state has all our interests in mind. As evidenced by you, the hardcore libertarian individual can care less about the rest of society. People like you see yourselves as your own country, with your set of laws, your own constitution and your own personal fucking military. You guys are more scary than Al Queada. 



			
				Bryan Paulson said:
			
		

> The State is not responsible for individual self defense, civilians have always been responsible for their own defense against criminals - law enforcement is primarily reactionary, it is not an effective prophylactic. There is no philosophical or logical basis to your notion it is the State's responsibility more than the individual's.



Police use preventive tactics to ensure the civilians don't have to go through the situation of defending themselves. Their presence alone is a deterrent against criminals. Surveillance cameras are a deterrent. And if you want self defense, get a fucking taser, not some weapon of mass destruction. 

I just provided you a philosophical and the logical basis in the post above. Individuals are not entitled to weapons of mass destructive originally created for the state. The fact you attempt to provide a philosophical "logical" displays such blindness to realities of those weapons potency. 



			
				Bryan Pauslon said:
			
		

> Weapons of mass destruction would be regulated even in the absence of a State. It's a non-issue. The purpose and usage of a weapon of mass destruction and a gun aren't the same.



Oh, is that what the libertarian textbook says? Is that what the survivor's guide to anarchy says? How the fuck do wmd get regulated in a stateless, lawless world? Who is to stop a warlard hell bent on his own power to use it? 

The are most certainly the same. KILL AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE. Your self defense argument for assault weapons ignores the historical context of these weapons.  



			
				Bryan Pauslon said:
			
		

> My government is not "elected by me" when I vote for someone that loses. It's another illogical argument in a long line of illogical arguments you've put forth.



Demand a proportional representation/parliamentary system of government and maybe your vote will be recognized. 



			
				Bryan Paulson said:
			
		

> Furthermore, I am subject to a "social contract" that I never signed, and have no say in.



You are also the son of a mother and father you didn't agree to be born from. You also were born in a country that you didn't chose to be born in. Government and society is a multi-generational institution that exists to ensure continuing peace, harmony and protection for generations to come. Don't like this social contract that you were arbitrarily born into? Change it through democratic means...Just because you don't like, doesn't mean others have to suffer your ideology without their own say, nor does it mean the state should lose its' territorial sovereignty to cause you want to form your own state.

Don't like this? Too fucking bad. Get used to it. Pack your bags and Get the fuck out if you don't like it. Go on your own island. Citizens that would usurp the state for their own selfish ideological concerns are trash. 



			
				Bryan Paulson said:
			
		

> I have bolded what is the most asinine thing I think I've read on this forum today, which is saying something because I've been arguing with Bender. If someone honestly believes that trust should be invested in the government, an entity with a monopoly on force, to such a degree that distrust merits distrust in oneself and their fellow civilians, then they are wholly irrational.



During WWII, the people of this country, trusted a monopoly of force and terror called the United States military to fight 2 fascist regimes and defend freedom and democracy. During the Cuban Missle Crisis, the people trusted this same monopoly of force to ensure that freedom and democracy would be protected from a Communist Superpower. People in the U.K, Germany, Singapore, Japan, South Korea trust monopolies of power to ensure their general protection. What the fuck are you smoking? You need to escape that libertarian mind prison. 



			
				Bryanb Pauslon said:
			
		

> "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." - J. Dalberg-Acton



How bout you post intelligent arguments instead of cliches? 



			
				Bryan Paulson said:
			
		

> Quite obviously you don't have a single fucking shred of understanding of human history, or you'd never be caught writing such stupid shit. The government is corrupt, and you couldn't possibly attempt to put together a case that it isn't.



Of course government is corrupt. Thats why you.. CLEAN IT UP, elect a new government, use innovation and new governing procedures that eliminate as much corruption as possible. Government isn't flawless. But that doesn't mean you eliminate it and put millions of people on their own for your fucking self. From what you keep saying, your history is mired in delusional political philosophy. 



			
				Bryan Paulson said:
			
		

> I also get to turn this back on you - you ask to "have a little trust in your people and your government", *but you do not trust those same people to responsibly handle dangerous items. *However, when they are a State-sponsored individual you magically about-face and have a theistic level of trust and belief in their benevolence, never minding that it's still, ultimately, just an individual.



Uhhh. hello, did you forget the title of this thread? Newtown Connecticut much?Did you forget about Columbine? Virginia Tech? Newtwon? 120,000 dead from gun violence a year? I should fucking trust trust people with guns after this shit? Sorry buddy, but FACTS trump ideology. 

And you tell accuse me of having a theistic trust of government? Sir, look at how you worship the 2nd Amendment and guns. Look at how you refuse to search for alternative solutions to lethal weapons. At least I acknowledge that government isn't always perfect and will fuck up sometimes. You refuse to see assualt weapons as a clear overkill device used for mass murder. You see it as "defence" YOU are the fucking brainwashed fanatic gun nut.   



			
				Bryan Paulson said:
			
		

> I have a higher level of trust in the individuals that live in this country than you could ever dream of having, as witnessed by your paranoia surrounding the possibility of certain things being legal to own by individuals.



Without the state, trust me, your trust would quickly dwindle. And again, the pot calling the kettle black. You accuse me of paranoia, when you think the State is gonna kill you, enslave you. 



			
				Bryan Paulson said:
			
		

> I trust civilians. I absolutely do not trust the State. They should never be conflated as synonymous, because to assert as such would be to assert that civilians endorse all the unethical shit the State does like torture, abuse of power, and drone strikes.



The State comes from the Civilian population, if you don't trust the State you don't trust the civilians. Simple. And it seems you think policies and actions of the state are absolute and infinite and unyielding to change. Wrong again. 



			
				Bryan Paulson said:
			
		

> The collective ownership of a nuke would be precisely that - collective. State ownership of a nuke is exclusive. There is a marked difference. When you admitted the State is greater than the individual, and that they have special rights, you summarily dismissed ever being part of a collective that owns a nuke. In short, you have no say in what the State does with any of its weaponry.



.....huh?  What the fuck?

The state owns nukes... INDIVDUALS DON'T and should never own them. The State, should own individuals, INDIVIDUALS SHOULDN'T. 

And this "collective" you speak of...is that the when on your libertarian fantasy world, individuals come together to regulate certain items for greater protection? Well sir, you have a state right there. 



			
				Bryan Paulson said:
			
		

> An AK-47 can fulfill a specific defensive purpose against unwarranted aggression against one's person. A nuke, as a weapon of mass destruction, cannot possibly hope to achieve such an aim.



Rubber bullet pistol, ora taser, can fulfill the same defensive role an Ak-47 can without excessive use of force or guaranteed lethality. You act as if you are fighting a Soviet invasion.



			
				Bryan Paulson said:
			
		

> You have to wonder about any individual's grasp of logic when they attempt to treat an AK-47 and a nuclear weapon as synonymous.



You have to wonder if someone is intentionally deluding themselves if they don't think the sole purpose of an Ak-47 is to inflict mass casualties.


----------



## ShadowReij (Dec 19, 2012)

Rivers said:


> You have a source for that?
> 
> Anyways,
> 
> ...



Sounds like common sense to me. The fuck do I need a gun in this day and age? More likely to miss use it then use it correctly even more dangerous if I had kids.


----------



## Rivers (Dec 19, 2012)

Smiley said:


> Unfortunately I do not have a "source" which proves the existence of Santa Claus. Shame I can't just copy/paste a few paragraphs that someone wrote about him being real.
> 
> Do you have a source of objectivity within a mile radius of that subjective value judgement regarding what qualifies as a worthwhile risk, a worthwhile benefit, or... You know... Anything at all that isn't just someone's opinion with the word "research" slapped onto it?



It was published in the _American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine 2011_. Unless you have evidence that they have a hidden agenda against the anit-gun-control movement, I'm not holding it's validity inferior to this topic at hand.



Smiley said:


> The claim is ridiculous. There are hundreds of millions of guns in America but the related injuries are only counted in the thousands, many of which are the result of legitimate self defence and have saved more people than they have harmed.



You have statistics for this?



> Tell me, how does a few thousand injuries outbalance the hundreds of millions of firearms which cause no injuries? How exactly are you wrapping your head around these odds? The number of injuries compared to the number of guns is obscenely small.



Your missing point though, these *"hundreds of millions firearms"* how many of them have been used for self-defense?

It was already posted on the last page that:



> A 2011 study published in the American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine reported that:
> 
> *Overall, the limited data on self-defence gun use suggest that (a) genuine self-defence gun use is rare, (b) there are many ways that people defend themselves without a gun, and (c) many of these other methods may be as effective as self-defence gun use in preventing injury. *
> 
> Perhaps surprisingly, the evidence does not indicate that having a gun reduces the risk of being a victim of a crime or that having a gun reduces the risk of injury during the commission of a crime.​





ShadowReij said:


> *Sounds like common sense *to me. The fuck do I need a gun in this day and age? More likely to miss use it then use it correctly even more dangerous if I had kids.



Yet people still calling it bullshit.


----------



## Stunna (Dec 19, 2012)

I'm not reading the whole thread, but I've one question: why is this being protested?


----------



## Rivers (Dec 19, 2012)

Stunna said:


> I'm not reading the whole thread, but I've one question: why is this being protested?



You mean protested against stricter gun control?


----------



## Stunna (Dec 19, 2012)

**


----------



## drache (Dec 19, 2012)

Bryan Paulsen said:


> #1) Individuals inherently possess ownership of their being.
> #2) As owners of being they are responsible for looking after their personal welfare.
> #3) In the pursuit of self-welfare it is a rational pursuit to have the most effective means of self-defense available.
> 
> ...


 


no it only exists in your mind there's nothing 'responsible' about owning an rpg or machine gun

gods you gun nuts would probably argue for artillery pieces next



Bryan Paulsen said:


> #
> Furthermore, extending the right of self-ownership would present the logical disallowance for why rocket launchers/nukes/bombs/mine would be a shitty choice for self-defense - they would subvert the self-ownership of unrelated individuals to unwarranted aggression.


 
you seem to think that talking like you are educated sprinkled in with some big words makes you educated. It doesn't



Bryan Paulsen said:


> #
> You have no say in what the State does with *any* of its weapons. Go up to a police station and demand they turn in any firearms that a citizen wouldn't be allowed to own. Hell, do it in a group of 10,000.


 
wtf? 



Bryan Paulsen said:


> #
> And you'll fail miserably, because you have no control over the matter. You are powerless, left to console yourself with the hope that the State is a benevolent deity.


 
or I could launch a political drive to get the laws changed

frankly your claim has no validity here because even if the current laws match your claims they can always be changed by the majority



Bryan Paulsen said:


> #
> Next time you file taxes you should file under the same tax-exempt provisions churches receive, because your theistic level of belief and devotion to the State can only be understood in that light.


 

lmao


your childish insults always amuse me, yes I shall call it the church of science and logic


----------



## LouDAgreat (Dec 19, 2012)

Stunna said:


> I'm not reading the whole thread, but I've one question: why is this being protested?



People think they have a god given right to own military style assault weapons. They believe owning such weapons will "protect them". We can have as many school shootings a year, they will still blindly believe in this right, and refuse to see assault weapons as the problem.


----------



## Rivers (Dec 19, 2012)

Stunna said:


> **



From what I gathered:
1. Cant rely on the Police Force for your protection.

2. They take away your rights to hold guns, the door is open for the Government to take away more of your rights.

3. Its impossible for the Government to take back assault rifles and the such or current owners wont easily cooperate.

4. Assault rifles used for entertainment/leisure purposes is their right, not their problem if other people cant keep their firearms in a secure place.


----------



## ShadowReij (Dec 19, 2012)

Rivers said:


> Yet people still calling it bullshit.


Because you have idiots and people who don't realize that everything written in the constitution can not be applied to this age. In fact we add ammendments because the damn thing becomes outdated, needs heavy fixing, or both. Having guns back then made sense: hunting, war, and the need for actual protection in the frontier. Now though? War is over, shopping at walmart is our "hunting", and we have something called law enforcement to serve and protect us in this modern frontier.


Rivers said:


> From what I gathered:
> 1. Cant rely on the Police Force for your protection.
> 
> 2. They take away your rights to hold guns, the door is open for the Government to take away more of your rights.
> ...



Of which:

1. As if playing wild west is a better alternative just ask Zimmerman. 

2. lol the government doesn't need to take away your guns to take away your rights, they have alot more toys. 

3. Well fuck, I'm pretty sure benjamins always loosens the grip, but if not then make sure these individuals have the resources to secure these weapons from the reach others.

4. Which is a bullshit reason and half the problem, guns have been reduced to be looked at as toys then actual weapons.


----------



## drache (Dec 20, 2012)

in fairness there is something of an argument for guns in home defense especially on the plains states where there might be only a couple of cops in a couple hundred square miles and response time is greater then 10 minutes in some places

That though has nothing to do with the right to carry (which I am mostly against) or the absurd libertarian bullshit about rpgs, grenades and assault rifles


----------



## LouDAgreat (Dec 20, 2012)

I'll concede handguns for households, but only in the middle of fuck nowhere South, which is pretty much were most of the gun loons come from. But even with handguns, all ammo manufactured in the U.S should be as minimally lethal as possible. 

No Assault weapons, semi-automatic, or high rpm weapons. One shot weapons only. Beyond that would be gross irresponsibility and insanity on the part of anyone in support of such weapons.


----------



## drache (Dec 20, 2012)

oh I agree Lou that fragmentation rounds (or similar) should be used and so on and so forth just wanted to be fair

there's also nothing inherently wrong with semi auto, the problem is things like the AR-15/M16 which are semi auto with 30+ round cliips


----------



## LouDAgreat (Dec 20, 2012)

> *It Takes Only Minutes to Buy Assault Rifles Day after Newton Massacre*
> 
> A man bought an AR-15 assault rifle at a Westchester, N.Y. gun shop Saturday — a day after 26 people were slaughtered at an elementary school in Connecticut. The Daily News is withholding his name.
> 
> ...


----------



## Mintaka (Dec 20, 2012)

Oh come on Lou and Drache.  How am I supposed to feel safe without my M388 Davy Crockett?


----------



## Bazu'aal (Dec 20, 2012)

Screw you guys, I'm gonna buy a nuke.

Or an arm cannon...


----------



## drache (Dec 20, 2012)

Mintaka said:


> Oh come on Lou and Drache. How am I supposed to feel safe without my M388 Davy Crockett?


maybe that's it, we should buy all the gun nuts a teddy in the shape of a gun so they can sleep at night


----------



## LouDAgreat (Dec 20, 2012)

Every person should have their own fully armed drones hovering around so they'll sneak in and kill whoever is shooting them. They'll even punch a hole in any building you're in and shoot the target. Maximum firepower. 

Want to practice defensive driving? Don't feel like practicing defensive driving? You can do either or both with m1a1 Abrams tanks!!!

After all, a gun design specifically for the military for inflicitng mass casualties is also a perfectly fine and innocent tool for defending our ourselves...Nukes, Assault Weapons, Tanks, you name, we should have it.


----------



## Mintaka (Dec 20, 2012)

drache said:


> maybe that's it, we should buy all the gun nuts a teddy in the shape of a gun so they can sleep at night


Don't forget the blanket made of camo netting, and the pillow shaped like an ammo box.

Of course how you'll replace mine I don't know.  It just won't be the same without the imminent threat of radiation poisoning.

The M388 btw is the smallest nuclear warhead launcher ever made.  I just don't feel right without knowing I could reduce my neighborhood to ash incase I were robbed.


----------



## Stygian (Dec 20, 2012)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Holy fucking hell, look at how BADLY they've distorted the facts and given misinformation in this article!
And you actually believe it, don't you?

My fellow liberals... how far you all have fallen.


----------



## drache (Dec 20, 2012)

You know I want an abrams just to make parallel parking easier, that asshole who doesn't know how to park and takes his and your spot? yeah your car is now a pancake


----------



## drache (Dec 20, 2012)

Mintaka said:


> Don't forget the blanket made of camo netting, and the pillow shaped like an ammo box.
> 
> Of course how you'll replace mine I don't know. It just won't be the same without the imminent threat of radiation poisoning.
> 
> The M388 btw is the smallest nuclear warhead launcher ever made. I just don't feel right without knowing I could reduce my neighborhood to ash incase I were robbed.


 
I'm sure we can lace it with Radium, make it out of hard metal it will kill you just the same 

Yeah the M388 is a relic from the 'tactical' nuke phase


----------



## Mintaka (Dec 20, 2012)

I find it absurdly amusing.  Strangely awesome, but absurd nonetheless.

Anywho, as much as I'd like to think that in a perfect society people could be trusted to have assault style weapons, this isn't that society.  At the very least if they were to stay legal, they should be the most tightly regulated, hard to obtain weapons available.  Only after extensive background checks, testing, the works.  When one gets the license these things should be rechecked on a month to month basis.  Furthermore one should have to have it locked within something that only a bomb could open without permission at all times it is not being used.  Ammunition as well should only be sold at key places that are constantly watched and monitored.  All Inquirers into getting a license should also be put into a database of some sort, logged, and cross checked with the FBI, ATF, and other government sources as well.  Finally if you have kids, you automatically are not eligible to get them, period.

Basically if we want this sopo badly we should at least treat them with the respect they deserve and only put them in the hands of people who for whatever reason are responsible enough to handle them properly.

If we cannot have that as a* minimum *requirement at the very least, we shouldn't have them on the market.  FFS these are assault weapons.  If the name doesn't tip you off as to there purpose nothing will.


----------



## Bazu'aal (Dec 20, 2012)

Mintaka said:


> The M388 btw is the smallest nuclear warhead launcher ever made.  I just don't feel right without knowing I could reduce my neighborhood to ash incase I were robbed.



Would sure show dem bad guys and the government. Try to steal our stuff? What stuff? Everything is blown the fuck up.

Joke's on you. Now ya got nothin to take. Not even the warhead I just used. Suck it.


----------



## Stygian (Dec 20, 2012)

I think I might actually go out and buy myself a new rifle out of pure spite. Lmao


----------



## LouDAgreat (Dec 20, 2012)

> *It’s the Guns
> *
> President Obama on Wednesday gave Vice President Joe Biden Jr. a month to complete a job that he could have finished that afternoon. It is time to come up with, as Mr. Obama put it, “a set of concrete proposals” to make the nation safer from guns. The ways to do this are well-known because the nation has grappled with gun massacres many times before. It is Congress that hasn’t.
> 
> ...


----------



## LouDAgreat (Dec 20, 2012)

Stygian said:


> I think I might actually go out and buy myself a new rifle out of pure spite. Lmao



Nice, go spite the victims of families right? Go spite the mothers and fathers who lost their children? Fuck them. Fuck the mothers and fathers right? Fuck the children that died right Stygian? Too bad for them, if they had a gone like you were about to get to defend themselves they would still be alive right? Horray for you and your gun, the hell with anyone that dies from them right?

If hundreds more Newtowns happen what will you say Stygian? "Lmao, lol, ROFL" That's your response.

A shame people like you exist in this country. People like you perpetuate and empower Adam Lanzas in this world.


----------



## drache (Dec 20, 2012)

LouDAgreat said:


> Nice, go spite the victims of families right? Go spite the mothers and fathers without children? Fuck them. Fuck the mothers and fathers right? Fuck the children that died right Stygian? Too bad for them, if they had a gone like you were about to get to defend themselves they would still be alive right? Horray for you and your gun the hell with anyone that dies from them right?
> 
> If hundreds more Newtowns happen what will you say Stygian? "Lmao, lol, ROFL" That's your response.
> 
> A shame people like you exist in this country. People like you perpetuate and empower Adam Lanzas in this world.


 
not worht getting too mad about Lou, he's probably some kid that can't even buy a gun let alone afford one


----------



## Stygian (Dec 20, 2012)

LouDAgreat said:


> Nice, go spite the victims of families right? Go spite the mothers and fathers without children? Fuck them. Fuck the mothers and fathers right? Fuck the children that died right Stygian? Too bad for them, if they had a gone like you were about to get to defend themselves they would still be alive right? Horray for you and your gun the hell with anyone that dies from them right?
> 
> If hundreds more Newtowns happen what will you say Stygian? "Lmao, lol, ROFL" That's your response.
> 
> A shame people like you exist in this country. People like you perpetuate and empower Adam Lanzas in this world.



Cool. I didn't say any of that, but if it makes you feel better to think that then go right on ahead.

Liberals like you give the rest of us a bad name.
You can't even hold an argument without pouring as much emotion laden BS into your post as possible.
That's what you do. You FEED off of peoples emotional reactions to a tragedy in order to further your own political agenda and beliefs.


----------



## Mintaka (Dec 20, 2012)

Stygian said:


> Cool. I didn't say any of that, but if it makes you feel better to think that then go right on ahead.
> 
> Liberals like you give the rest of us a bad name.
> You can't even hold an argument without pouring as much emotion laden BS into your post as possible.
> That's what you do. You FEED off of peoples emotional reactions to a  tragedy in order to further your own political agenda and  beliefs.




And how was what you said not an emotional attack?

Spite?  Last I checked that wasn't a logical response.


----------



## Stygian (Dec 20, 2012)

Mintaka said:


> And how was what you said not an emotional attack?
> 
> Spite?  Last I checked that wasn't a logical response.



It's a response out of annoyance from these vampires, and not even a serious one at that.
Guns aren't the evil mass-murdering weapons everyone in this thread seems to be so intent on believing, and that's what I'm trying to convey with that post.

I may say things that sounds terrible and uncaring at times, and looking back I'd take them back if I could, but I do have the deepest sympathy for the victims families in this terrible tragedy.
But at the same time I don't let my emotions run rampant and reach for the
BAN EVERYTHING THAT COULD BE POTENTIALLY HARMFUL TO PEOPLE button.

As I've repeatedly said(which everyone seems to want to ignore regardless) I am in favor of stricter gun control, as long as it is SENSIBLE and will actually have EFFECTIVENESS in preventing horrible things like this event, and won't pointlessly take away the rights of the average law abiding Joe.
All I've been trying to do is get that point across.


----------



## Mintaka (Dec 20, 2012)

So you admit to the hypocrisy of getting emotional yourself?

Anywho, I agree this needs to be effective.  Stricter laws or banning them may help accomplish this but I just cannot shake the feeling that this is treating a symptom of the problem and not the bigger problem itself.  We can ban all the things we want, but if we still have psycho's running around it's only inevitable that something will happen again.  We need to also focus on mental health care to spot and deal with people like this BEFORE they pull this stuff off.

Furthermore and somewhat controversially I think it would be wise to tighten up security at schools.  The fact is I used to get out of my elementary school through a hole in the fence.  That's a security flaw begging to be exploited.

At the very least make it so you can only get in and out through certain points.  If you were really smart you'd also put weapons detectors at these points, that way even if somehow a mental health practitioner missed the signs we'd have a further layer or security to stop this from happening.


If we are truly serious about solving this issue I fail to see how these things could be bad.


----------



## LouDAgreat (Dec 20, 2012)

Stygian said:
			
		

> Cool. I didn't say any of that, but if it makes you feel better to think that then go right on ahead.



In effect you did. Go fucking read what you said dumbass, 


here let me post it for you:



Stygian said:


> I think I might actually go out and buy myself a new rifle out of pure spite. Lmao



Out of pure spite...out of pure fucking spite. In effect you said fuck gun control, fuck the victims, fuck the families and most of all fuck the children. You said "just because a few kids died don't mean I gotta throw away my guhn." 



Stygian said:


> Liberals like you give the rest of us a bad name.
> You can't even hold an argument without pouring as much emotion laden BS into your post as possible.
> That's what you do. You FEED off of peoples emotional reactions to a tragedy in order to further your own political agenda and beliefs.



Liberals give America bad names..After a massacre what do gun advocate? 

"Dis tradegy wudnta hapen if we had mahr GUHHNSSS!!!

Tragedies like this don't phase you in the slightest. It doesn't matter how many children die...You still want your assault rifles. You and the NRA will continue to support the use of death tools. 

Feed off emotional responses? How bout not wanting to see anymore emotional parents grieving their lost children anymore you dumb fuck.


----------



## LouDAgreat (Dec 20, 2012)

Stygian said:
			
		

> It's a response out of annoyance from these vampires, and not even a serious one at that.
> Guns aren't the evil mass-murdering weapons everyone in this thread seems to be so intent on believing, and that's what I'm trying to convey with that post.



Yes, the fucking are. The purpose of an assault rifle is to inflict as much casualties as possible. They were built with combat in mind, not defense. 



			
				Stygian said:
			
		

> I may say things that sounds terrible and uncaring at times, and looking back I'd take them back if I could, but I do have the deepest sympathy for the victims families in this terrible tragedy.



Nah, you don't "Let me go buy a gun out of spite" You're a twat. 



			
				Stygian said:
			
		

> But at the same time I don't let my emotions run rampant and reach for the
> BAN EVERYTHING THAT COULD BE POTENTIALLY HARMFUL TO PEOPLE button.



Anytime this shit happens it's clear at the very least an assault weapons ban is in order. Assault *enable* greater damage and casualties. How does it not? 



			
				Stygian said:
			
		

> As I've repeatedly said(which everyone seems to want to ignore regardless) I am in favor of stricter gun control, as long as it is SENSIBLE and will actually have EFFECTIVENESS in preventing horrible things like this event, and won't pointlessly take away the rights of the average law abiding Joe.
> All I've been trying to do is get that point across.



Oh, now you're all modest and civil after that shit you said.


----------



## Stygian (Dec 20, 2012)

Mintaka said:


> So you admit to the hypocrisy of getting emotional yourself?
> 
> Anywho, I agree this needs to be effective.  Stricter laws or banning them may help accomplish this but I just cannot shake the feeling that this is treating a symptom and not the problem itself.  We can ban all the things we want, but if we still have psycho's running around it's only inevitable that something will happen again.  We need to also focus on mental health care to spot and deal with people like this BEFORE they pull this stuff off.
> 
> ...



I admit to being annoyed and saying things that I don't mean, so yes, it does happen to all of us at times. Especially when exhausted after a long day at work. Know what I mean?


Banning them won't help it, stricter laws in certain areas could greatly or at least moderately help it, but certainly not down to the levels that other countries have. There are simply too many guns available for illegal purchase, and there are already an obscene amount of them ALREADY in the hands of criminals that gun laws can't touch no matter how many are made. When you add that to the current state of the economy, and the disrepair that many people are living in, it makes for a very bad situation.

Getting better mental healthcare services for these mentally disturbed people is one of our BEST bets at preventing further tragedies, and something I'm fully supportive of.
Psychological tests for potential gun owners are also something that could have a significant impact on keeping them out of the hands of maniacs, but the hardcore sociopaths that know how to keep themselves in check and appear normal on the outside when they have to, still have a good chance of slipping through the cracks in the system.

Tightening security at schools is also something I am advocating. Especially IMMEDIATELY AFTER a tragedy like this when there's a likelihood of there being copycat incidents. 
Metal detectors in school are another perfectly logical and good idea that I'm behind. I'm pretty sure they have them in at least one highschool that I know of in my city. Granted this would have to be paid for by the state though, since many schools can't even afford to paint there walls once every ten years, let alone state of the art equipment like that.

Those things all have the potentially to lower the rate of tragedies like this significantly, but not everyone is putting that forth onto the table.
All we hear is BAN DA EVIL BLACK ASSAULT WEAPONZ AND DA HIGH CAP CLIPZZ, especially in this thread, and that's why I'm getting annoyed.


----------



## Stygian (Dec 20, 2012)

LouDAgreat said:


> Yes, the fucking are. The purpose of an assault rifle is to inflict as much casualties as possible. They were built with combat in mind, not defense.



The military versions of the weapons are made for pure combat, to be sure; that's why those aren't on the market.
Civilian versions of them are a different story.
AR-15's are perfectly capable of most things your average deer rifle is, except for the notable fact that AR-15's fire a much weaker round than them.
They also have perfectly legitimate use as guns for recreational shooting, and competitive target shooting.





> Nah, you don't "Let me go buy a gun out of spite" You're a twat.



Out of spite for you and your ilk. Quite a difference.





> Anytime this shit happens it's clear at the very least an assault weapons ban is in order. Assault *enable* greater damage and casualties. How does it not?



How often are 'assault weapons' used in homicide? The only examples that you can really give are high profile tragedies like the Aurora cinema shooting, and the at a mall in Washington a few days back.
In the Newtown shooting, an 'assault weapon' wasn't used. The shooter had one available to him, but used two handguns instead, did he not?
If anything, you should be attacking HANDGUNS, not 'assault weapons' which aren't used NEARLY as often in gun homicides.





> Oh, now you're all modest and civil after that shit you said.



I calm down pretty quickly. I don't go off for hours on end when I get annoyed by people on the internet. :/


----------



## LouDAgreat (Dec 20, 2012)

Stygian said:


> The military versions of the weapons are made for pure combat, to be sure; that's why those aren't on the market.
> Civilian versions of them are a different story.
> AR-15's are perfectly capable of most things your average deer rifle is, except for the notable fact that AR-15's fire a much weaker round than them.
> They also have perfectly legitimate use as guns for recreational shooting, and competitive target shooting.



What the fuck is the difference? They are still both high powered high rounds per minute weapons of mass death. Completely unnecessary for defence. And recreational shooting. Nothing says psychotic like recreational shooting with an AR-15. 



Stygian said:


> Out of spite for you and your ilk. Quite a difference.



I'm sure the families and their victims could tell the difference if you said it to them.



			
				Stygian said:
			
		

> How often are 'assault weapons' used in homicide? The only examples that you can really give are high profile tragedies like the Aurora cinema shooting, and the at a mall in Washington a few days back.



 Columbine? Viginia Tech? The Washington D.C sniper shootings? Hello? 
Too many times in America.



Stygian said:


> In the Newtown shooting, an 'assault weapon' wasn't used. The shooter had one available to him, but used two handguns instead, did he not?
> If anything, you should be attacking HANDGUNS, not 'assault weapons' which aren't used NEARLY as often in gun homicides.


----------



## drache (Dec 20, 2012)

Stygian said:


> The military versions of the weapons are made for pure combat, to be sure; that's why those aren't on the market.
> Civilian versions of them are a different story.
> AR-15's are perfectly capable of most things your average deer rifle is, except for the notable fact that AR-15's fire a much weaker round than them.
> They also have perfectly legitimate use as guns for recreational shooting, and competitive target shooting.


 
the 5.56 mm is hardly a 'weaker round' and if you really know as much about guns as you imply then you are being dishonest here.

Further if you need a 30 round mag to hit a deer you suck as a hunter. I have uncles that take deer down with a bow from within 50 yards. An AR 15 is pure overkill


----------



## Ultra Instinct Vegito (Dec 20, 2012)

Continue living in your little fantasy world.


----------



## Stygian (Dec 20, 2012)

LouDAgreat said:


> What the fuck is the difference? They are still both high powered high rounds per minute weapons of mass death. Completely unnecessary for defence. And recreational shooting. Nothing says psychotic like recreational shooting with an AR-15.



The difference is one is capable of fully automatic fire, and the other isn't.
What do you define as "necessary for defense"? Many things aren't always "necessary", but we still have and use them anyway. Should societies remove every potentially dangerous object that isn't absolutely vital for continued life?

When your priority is defending yourself and your loved ones from remorseless lunatics who won't think twice about murdering innocent men, women, and children, do you want sub-par equipment or something that is going to ensure your survival?




> I'm sure the families and their victims could tell the difference if you said it to them.



Many things can sound hurtful when taken out of context, or when misinterpreted.
The point is that I was addressing the people in this thread who are so insanely paranoid about inanimate objects that they are terrified of even holding one or firing it. See Bender's earlier post for what I'm referring to.




> Columbine? Viginia Tech? The Washington D.C sniper shootings? Hello?
> Too many times in America.



The Virginia Tech shooting was done with two handguns, no "assault weapons" used.

The Columbine shooting was done with two sawed-off 12 gauge shotguns, a 9mm Hi-Point Carbine(that didn't meet the requirements for an "assault weapon" since all features on it were legal as far as I know), and a TEC-9 handgun. Out of those, none really fit the bit of "assault weapon", and the only weapon using a high capacity magazine was the TEC-9 and it was already a banned weapon listed by name in the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994. A lot of good that ban did in keeping it out of the hands of lunatics.

The Beltway sniper shootings were indeed done with a stolen AR-15 model rifle.

So out of those, only one was actually done with an "assault weapon". The rest were all handguns and a few shotguns tossed in.



The last I had heard it was the AR-15 that was left in the car, but that was pretty soon after the story broke, so maybe they made a mistake(it wouldn't be the first).


----------



## Stygian (Dec 20, 2012)

drache said:


> the 5.56 mm is hardly a 'weaker round' and if you really know as much about guns as you imply then you are being dishonest here.



As compared to a .308 or a 30-06, the two most popular hunting rounds used in the United States? There's quite a big difference in power there.
The only way the 5.56 has of even coming NEAR the damage potential of either of those rounds, is because of the significant yawing and fragmentation effect the 5.56 has when it hits soft tissue.
In terms of ballistics and raw power, the 5.56 falls far behind either of those rounds, and I can give you any number of statistics to back that up. Don't forget that the 5.56x45 is an intermediate cartridge, not a full powered rifle cartridge. Don't mistake that for me saying that the 5.56 isn't perfectly capable of killing, though.



> Further if you need a 30 round mag to hit a deer you suck as a hunter. I have uncles that take deer down with a bow from within 50 yards. An AR 15 is pure overkill



I'm not saying to use a 30 round magazine to hunt deer. That's just pointless.
What I AM saying, is that banning high capacity magazines won't keep them out of the hands of criminals significantly. We already know that from the failure of the LAST ban placed on them.


----------



## arc (Dec 20, 2012)

change the constitution.


----------



## Bryan Paulsen (Dec 20, 2012)

LouDAgreat said:


> To put oneself on the pedestal of existence and and to go no fuck whatsoever of the welfare of others. "Fuck You and Horray for Me" "The Hell with you and society, horray for me".



Individuals of all stripes get the pedestal. Collectivists that would subvert individuals based on their whims can go fuck themselves. I stand for myself, and all other individuals that would stand for themselves. Their right of self-ownership is not superior to my own, and mine is not superior to theirs. As a human being capable of both sympathy and empathy my concern for their welfare supercedes your own, recognizing as I do their absolute ownership of self and the inviolability of my own.

It's a thoroughly rational, ethical understanding of rights you cannot possibly comprehend as an Authoritarian Socialist, because it would negate your entire philosophy.



> The individual goes above and beyond self defence when he acquires weapons of mass destruction. He's impeding in the duties of the state to protect citizens.



It is not the duty of the State to protect citizens, so says the US Supreme Court (Castle Rock v. Gonzalez, Bowers v. DeVito, South v. Maryland). Your entire premise that its the State's responsibility is blown out of the water by the damned State itself.



> There is a symbiotic relationship between humans. We rely on others to help us out as we can't fucking do everything on our. What you say speaks against the entire evolutionary history of fucking humanity.



A symbiotic relationship between humans doesn't necessitate a State, and evolutionary history of humans as hunter-gatherers up through the agricultural stage of development are proof of that due to their communal societies. A commune is, in fact, a state, but not a State. Poof. There goes all of your bullshit.



> The state has all our interests in mind.



Theistic Statist bullshit.

The State has the State's interests in mind, however nebulous they may be and whatever the fuck they're up to.

The California Senate, for example, exempted itself from the gun control laws everybody else must obey. That sure as hell does not qualify as "having all of our interests in mind". No, it qualifies as having the interests of the ruling class in mind.



> I just provided you a philosophical and the logical basis in the post above. Individuals are not entitled to weapons of mass destructive originally created for the state.



I've laid out a step by step basis for the morality of gun ownership. It stems from the principle of self-ownership. I will break it down into steps for you: 

First, establishing self-defense:

#1) The individual is in absolute ownership of themself.
#2) An individual in ownership of themself is responsible for their general welfare.
#3) Self-defense is a rational pursuit in securing one's general welfare.
#4) Effective, efficient means of self-defense ensure one's general welfare most capably.

and now, continuing with means used in self-defense:

#1) The individual is in absolute ownership of themself.
#2) An individual in ownership of themself recognizes the self-ownership of other individuals.
#3) Recognizing the illegitimacy of coercion in the face of self-ownership, aggression is immoral.
#4) Responses to aggression must have in mind the self-ownership of individuals unrelated to the aggressor.
#5) Legitimate self-defense must be focused on the aggressor.
#6) Illegitimate self-defense would not be solely focused on the aggressor.

Guns? Absolutely possible to use morally due to the function. Weapons of mass destruction? Not possible. The latter has no possible means of discrimination.

Feel free to take the logic to task. Good luck.



> Oh, is that what the libertarian textbook says? Is that what the survivor's guide to anarchy says? How the fuck do wmd get regulated in a stateless, lawless world? Who is to stop a warlard hell bent on his own power to use it?



A state will always exist due to the communal nature of humans, the State is unnecessary and parasitic. Weapons of mass destruction would be owned collectively, and all individuals would have a say in their usage. Laws do not disappear in the absence of a State, they would arise as the state needs them. Society is flexible and adaptable, more so than distant centralized power.

As it is now, no such say exists. At all. Period. The military could nuke a country tomorrow, and you have no say in the matter. 



> Demand a proportional representation/parliamentary system of government and maybe your vote will be recognized.



Wrong. Demand that the individual is the representative of themself as an extension of their self-ownership and their participation be voluntary, and their behavior regulated by their surrounding society, not an inescapable State beyond their direct influence.

Advocates for democracy are the biggest fans on Earth of abusing minorities. Color me entirely unimpressed with your desire to put minorities in shackles.



> Government and society is a multi-generational institution that exists to ensure continuing peace, harmony and protection for generations to come.



Human history says otherwise. Human history says the State is a multi-general institution used to ensure control over the denizens under its juridisction.

Society has no such compulsion, no such claim to your person, and is not detached from the individual.

Conflating society with the State makes you a _bona fide_ dipshit.



> During WWII, the people of this country, trusted a monopoly of force and terror called the United States military to fight 2 fascist regimes and defend freedom and democracy. During the Cuban Missle Crisis, the people trusted this same monopoly of force to ensure that freedom and democracy would be protected from a Communist Superpower. People in the U.K, Germany, Singapore, Japan, South Korea trust monopolies of power to ensure their general protection. What the fuck are you smoking? You need to escape that libertarian mind prison.



People will always collectivize against existential threats. They'll do it even in the face of a State that is wholly evil - Joseph Stalin had tremendous popular support in WW2 despite performing purges in the preceeding years. Your argument holds no merit whatsoever.

And it's not a matter of trust, it's a matter of coercion. There is no alternative. The State tells you they're going to handle it, and you're going to do as you're told. Due to the infinite well of hope people draw from all they can do is "trust" it to work, because they're not afforded alternatives.



> Of course government is corrupt. Thats why you.. CLEAN IT UP, elect a new government, use innovation and new governing procedures that eliminate as much corruption as possible. Government isn't flawless. But that doesn't mean you eliminate it and put millions of people on their own for your fucking self. From what you keep saying, your history is mired in delusional political philosophy.



"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." - J. Dalberg-Acton

You don't keep repeating the same mistake in the hopes that suddenly it'll work out next time. You are endorsing insanity, not a solution. We've tried electing new batches of Statists, *and nothing changes*.

People would not be on their own without the State. They would have their communities, just like they have for all of human history every single time a State has failed, and before the State ever existed. People are not wholly dependent on the State, unless that's where they derive their livelihood - such people are parasites.



> And you tell accuse me of having a theistic trust of government? Sir, look at how you worship the 2nd Amendment and guns. Look at how you refuse to search for alternative solutions to lethal weapons.



I have no worship of the 2nd Amendment, I use it as a means to an end. If I "worship" anything it's the right of self-ownership and all that it entails.

Gun ownership, of all varieties, fits the bill. Weapons of mass destruction (including bombs and grenades) do not fulfill this criteria due to inherent collateral damage involved in their usage. I covered this earlier in a step-by-step logical argument that even you should be able to understand.

(Collateral damage can include property, something else that stems from self-ownership, and is therefore unethical and immoral to destroy)



> Without the state, trust me, your trust would quickly dwindle. And again, the pot calling the kettle black. You accuse me of paranoia, when you think the State is gonna kill you, enslave you.



Without the State people would be forced to involve themselves in their community, and they would also be socially empowered, thereby incentivizing participation. Society would continue, and thrive. A state (note the small "s" you ignorant faux-former-libertarian asshole that doesn't know shit about the ideology you claim to have formerly adhered to) would naturally arise that directly represents the individual, and not clowns that feel a need to control others from a distance while giving themselves special privileges.

The State has already enslaved us by convincing dumbasses like you that they have special privileges you are not entitled to. In no society in which rights are doled out unevenly can one be considered free. If you are not the equal of your fellow man, then you are a slave to the man that possesses rights you do not.



> And this "collective" you speak of...is that the when on your libertarian fantasy world, individuals come together to regulate certain items for greater protection? Well sir, you have a state right there.



Sigh. Arguing with a former libertarian that doesn't know the difference between a State (by definition, a Nation-State) and a state (social communes, et al) is tiring. You are obviously not an individual that ever bothered to actually read about the philosophy you attempted to adhere to.

A state would see _individual_ influence on the application of weapons of mass destruction owned by the _collective_.

The State has no such distinction. The usage of any weaponry owned by the State is not in any way controlled or influenced by individuals outside of the State. It's a special club, and even the most useful of idiots (ie: you) are not invited.



> Rubber bullet pistol, ora taser, can fulfill the same defensive role an Ak-47 can without excessive use of force or guaranteed lethality. You act as if you are fighting a Soviet invasion.



People should not be limited in their means of executing moral self-defense against aggressors, lethal or otherwise. Period.

Any individual executing immoral self-defense should be punished accordingly.


----------



## αce (Dec 20, 2012)

gun fetish is disturbing
it hides behind the "im protecting myself" bullshit


----------



## Destroyer of Kittens (Dec 20, 2012)

To the people who support Assault rifle bans because of their capacity of killing, would you also support a alchohol ban?  Alchohol kills around 75,000 people a year in the united states, around 20,000 of them was do to drunk driving.  Now following that logic Alchohol doesnt really perform any function in society much like Assault rifles.  Should we ban alchohol to curb drunk driving?


----------



## |)/-\\/\/|\| (Dec 20, 2012)

I think the main problem is not having enough guns. If all men walk armed it will be very hard for someone to kill a lot of people, someone will take them down. In effect a "nutjob", will be able to kill very few people maybe as many as he would have killed if he had one big knife.


----------



## Bazu'aal (Dec 20, 2012)

Destroyer of Kittens said:


> To the people who support Assault rifle bans because of their capacity of killing, would you also support a alchohol ban?  Alchohol kills around 75,000 people a year in the united states, around 20,000 of them was do to drunk driving.  Now following that logic Alchohol doesnt really perform any function in society much like Assault rifles.  Should we ban alchohol to curb drunk driving?



 alcohol's main purpose isn't to kill while an assault weapon's is and to a great deal. You know what as well? There are laws in regards to alcohol consumption while driving, age, public intoxication and more. Gun laws are lax in comparison.


Using your logic, we should all be granted to nukes, because apparently killing capacity and purpose means nothing to you.


----------



## Destroyer of Kittens (Dec 20, 2012)

Purpose really doesnt mean anything when faced with 20,000 Deaths do to drunk driving and 75,000 from other alchohol related causes.  And you mean age limits on consuming Alchohol?  you are aware there are age limits to puchasing rifles and handguns right?  Your assuming there are no laws regarding what you cand do with a weapon?  I can guarentee you if you carried a Handgun without a open/conceeled carry permit you probably would get fined quite heavily if not arrested.

And i guarentee you that the creators of these assault weapons did not intend for them to be used to massacre school children.  most people who own a AR-15 simply use them for the occasional recreational shooting, not mass murder.

So my point.  Alchohol doesnt really have any actual use in society much like assault rifles and even cause about 8 times the amount of deaths of all gun related deaths "including suicides and accidents".  Should we ban alchohol?


----------



## drache (Dec 20, 2012)

Stygian said:


> As compared to a .308 or a 30-06, the two most popular hunting rounds used in the United States? There's quite a big difference in power there.
> The only way the 5.56 has of even coming NEAR the damage potential of either of those rounds, is because of the significant yawing and fragmentation effect the 5.56 has when it hits soft tissue.
> In terms of ballistics and raw power, the 5.56 falls far behind either of those rounds, and I can give you any number of statistics to back that up. Don't forget that the 5.56x45 is an intermediate cartridge, not a full powered rifle cartridge. Don't mistake that for me saying that the 5.56 isn't perfectly capable of killing, though.


 
that's utterly silly that's like saying it's not as dangerous as a 50 cal therefore it's safe

And the 5.56's 'issues' are that it's designed to cause maximium damage



Stygian said:


> I'm not saying to use a 30 round magazine to hunt deer. That's just pointless.
> What I AM saying, is that banning high capacity magazines won't keep them out of the hands of criminals significantly. We already know that from the failure of the LAST ban placed on them.


 
actually it will because it did last time, not that I expect gun nuts to listen to actual reason or logic


----------



## Megaharrison (Dec 20, 2012)

Banning high capacity clips while not banning assault rifles as a whole is self-defeating I agree imo. They're not particularly hard to get and unlike guns can be produced underground quite easily. They're just a piece of plastic with a spring loader in the bottom. You have to go the whole way.


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 20, 2012)

And you know what asault rifles and high capacity cartridges are selling like hot cakes... where is your gun control now?  This alone highlights the futility of a ban.


----------



## Butterfly (Dec 20, 2012)

Boy do I really love Dianne Feinstein. Finest SF Mayor, probably. 

I really hope this is successful. There has to be some point where we can finally actually live out the second amendment - specifically the well regulated part.


----------



## Waking Dreamer (Dec 20, 2012)

Megaharrison said:


> Banning high capacity clips while not banning assault rifles as a whole is self-defeating I agree imo. They're not particularly hard to get and unlike guns can be produced underground quite easily. They're just a piece of plastic with a spring loader in the bottom. You have to go the whole way.



Banning high capacity clips is still something though. 

The fact that it will no longer be available legally in stores means the average civilian will likely not purchase it. Do they actually need to empty out more than a regular amount of bullets from a clip in an already unlikely scenario?

The concept is more of a value for money idea when they are in the store,_ "Im might as well get the clips with the extra bullets while Im here."_ Unless you're already a gun enthusiast a new owner of gun is not going to go to the shady side of town just for extended clips. Like you even NEED them.


----------



## Mider T (Dec 20, 2012)

Butterfly said:


> Boy do I really love Dianne Feinstein. Finest SF Mayor, probably.
> 
> I really hope this is successful. There has to be some point where we can finally actually live out the second amendment - specifically the well regulated part.



Gail Newsom says hi.

And why would you want to "live out" one of the Bill of Rights.  That's stupid.


----------



## Stygian (Dec 20, 2012)

drache said:


> that's utterly silly that's like saying it's not as dangerous as a 50 cal therefore it's safe
> 
> And the 5.56's 'issues' are that it's designed to cause maximium damage



What are you even talking about? That's in no way similar in the slightest.
5.56x45 is a round that is perfectly capable of killing and is in no way shape or form "safe", as I said in the last post. But you're blatantly and dishonestly making it seem as if it is some super powered super deadly round more powerful than all the rest, despite the fact that it isn't as powerful as a .308 or 30-06, much less bigger cartridges like 8mm Mauser or .300 Winchester Magnum. In short: No one is disputing the lethality of the round, but rather the fact that it is far from being the most powerful like you seem to think it is.






> actually it will because it did last time, not that I expect gun nuts to listen to actual reason or logic



Really? How did that work out for the innocent teenagers who were MURDERED in the Columbine massacre, by two other teenagers one of whom used a weapon that was SPECIFICALLY BANNED BY NAME by the Federal Assault Weapons ban of 1994, which also had high capacity magazines which were ALSO banned by the bill?
Why didn't the ban stop them from obtaining that weapon, why didn't the ban stop them from obtaining that illegal magazine, why didn't the ban stop those kids from being killed in cold blood by those two sociopaths if the ban was so effective?

Are you going to tell me next that it was the video game's fault for making them kill those people?


----------



## drache (Dec 20, 2012)

Megaharrison said:


> Banning high capacity clips while not banning assault rifles as a whole is self-defeating I agree imo. They're not particularly hard to get and unlike guns can be produced underground quite easily. They're just a piece of plastic with a spring loader in the bottom. You have to go the whole way.


 
that has to perfectly fit the gun or bad things  happen so it's hardly that easy really unless you have precision tools availiable and at that point you could in theory make your own gun


----------



## drache (Dec 20, 2012)

Stygian said:


> What are you even talking about? That's in no way similar in the slightest.
> 5.56x45 is a round that is perfectly capable of killing and is in no way shape or form "safe", as I said in the last post. But you're blatantly and dishonestly making it seem as if it is some super powered super deadly round more powerful than all the rest, despite the fact that it isn't as powerful as a .308 or 30-06, much less bigger cartridges like 8mm Mauser or .300 Winchester Magnum. In short: No one is disputing the lethality of the round, but rather the fact that it is far from being the most powerful like you seem to think it is.


 
wow and you accuse me of being dishonest?

Look the 5.56 has a smaller powder charge thus is 'less powerful' but it's a military round designed to punch though light armor (and it will) and cause maximium damage. To call that 'less powerful' is fairly dishonest simply because the powder charge isn't as high as a higher caliber gun (or magnium variety) thus my point about the 50 cal

Further I never called a 5.56 'the most powerful' I am not sure what you are reading but it's clearly nothing I am writing.





Stygian said:


> Really? How did that work out for the innocent teenagers who were MURDERED in the Columbine massacre, by two other teenagers one of whom used a weapon that was SPECIFICALLY BANNED BY NAME by the Federal Assault Weapons ban of 1994, which also had high capacity magazines which were ALSO banned by the bill?
> Why didn't the ban stop them from obtaining that weapon, why didn't the ban stop them from obtaining that illegal magazine, why didn't the ban stop those kids from being killed in cold blood by those two sociopaths?
> 
> Are you going to tell me next that it was the video game's fault for making them kill those people?


 
do your research, the tec 9 was made and sold legally just before the ban went into effect

Thus while illegal under the law it was still legally procured. And yes that's screwed up but that's because Congress didn't have the balls to go all in and so they got a half assed result. That said  in general the law worked and helped to keep guns out of the hands of those that shouldn't have them and kept weapons that had no business being in civilian ownership out of civilian ownership


----------



## Bazu'aal (Dec 20, 2012)

Destroyer of Kittens said:


> Purpose really doesnt mean anything when faced with 20,000 Deaths do to drunk driving and 75,000 from other alchohol related causes.  And you mean age limits on consuming Alchohol?  you are aware there are age limits to puchasing rifles and handguns right?  Your assuming there are no laws regarding what you cand do with a weapon?  I can guarentee you if you carried a Handgun without a open/conceeled carry permit you probably would get fined quite heavily if not arrested.
> 
> And i guarentee you that the creators of these assault weapons did not intend for them to be used to massacre school children.  most people who own a AR-15 simply use them for the occasional recreational shooting, not mass murder.
> 
> So my point.  Alchohol doesnt really have any actual use in society much like assault rifles and even cause about 8 times the amount of deaths of all gun related deaths "including suicides and accidents".  Should we ban alchohol?



I'm tired from work so this may all sound very disjointed:

Since you mentioned suicide: Some of the risk factors include drug and/or alcohol abuse, yes; however, the risk is increased if there is situational stress and access to firearms. 83% of gun-related deaths in the home end in suicide.

Uh yes, purpose does matter a good amount but more importantly if a product displays great potential harm then it should be regulated accordingly to minimize misuse. Evidently guns are not regulated accordingly. Firearms are things that pose a threat to others, needing plans and controls for their use.; however providing controls for them should only be part of the solution. Of course the remainder I'm referring to is education and shifts in societal norms-but I'll just go off-track with that so I'm not continue that here. anyway, they are regulated, but not appropriately. Although I support our 2nd amendment's right, I do believe that the legislature has a right to define and restrict its scope. 

alcohol and cars are not made to kill people. Cars provide transportation, make life easier due to their utility, and more importantly, are used much more often than guns in this country and by more people. They carry their own inherent risks but their purpose isn't to kill. In addition to that, as a society we recognize the risks of vehicles and placed regulations upon them to attempt to minimize harm caused by them. Why you're opposed to the same protocol in regards to assault weapons, which are nowhere near as necessary as a car yet are just as dangerous, I don't know.

Yes I'm aware guns have age limits as well. I was just listing a bunch of common laws in regards to alcohol. alcohol doesn't serve any real purpose in society but people will access and use it. What regulation does is control its use to minimize harm. Banning it entirely did nothing and displayed an opposite effect. If the US wasn't so heavily gun cultured I would advocate banning all firearms; however, that isn't happening. Instead I proposed assault weapons/high capacity cartridges- I do not see why anyone would need a machine gun or a large capacity magazine of 20 or more rounds unless you were registered as a collector. 

and wow, did you actually imply that I was meaning that creators of guns make them in order to kill children? How low of you. I simply said that such weapons/ammo capacity are not only unnecessary but also flips the middle finger at minimizing damage by guns. I've also said multiple times here and in another thread that gun control seems to be sensible and respect the power of guns.

So my argument stands: how does not banning assault weapons/high capacity cartridges not hep to insure domestic tranquility? Furthermore, why not go for more regulation in regards to guns in a similar manner we do to more used products such as alcohol and cars (yet still as dangerous)?


----------



## Stygian (Dec 20, 2012)

drache said:


> wow and you accuse me of being dishonest?
> 
> Look the 5.56 has a smaller powder charge thus is 'less powerful' but it's a military round designed to punch though light armor (and it will) and cause maximium damage. To call that 'less powerful' is fairly dishonest simply because the powder charge isn't as high as a higher caliber gun (or magnium variety) thus my point about the 50 cal
> 
> Further I never called a 5.56 'the most powerful' I am not sure what you are reading but it's clearly nothing I am writing.



The 5.56 has a smaller powder charge as well as a smaller bullet; it can't reliably reach the same level of power that larger rounds with high powder charges and calibers have, this isn't a difficult concept to grasp. There's a reason why 5.56 and .223 aren't often used for hunting game such as deer. Even still, comparing rounds in this manner is extremely difficult because of the LARGE amount of variety in ammunition types used.
The 5.56 isn't as capable at punching through armor as well as larger rounds either. This is such a simple concept to grasp.

Lightweight 55gr variant 30-06 round impacting ballistics gel:


----------



## Soldaun (Dec 20, 2012)




----------



## Rivers (Dec 20, 2012)

Sacrifice said:


> and wow, did you actually imply that I was meaning that creators of guns make them in order to kill children? How low of you. I simply said that such weapons/ammo capacity are not only unnecessary but also flips the middle finger at minimizing damage by guns. I've also said multiple times here and in another thread that gun control seems to be sensible and respect the power of guns.
> 
> So my argument stands: how does not banning assault weapons/high capacity cartridges not hep to insure domestic tranquility? Furthermore, why not go for more regulation in regards to guns in a similar manner we do to more used products such as alcohol and cars (yet still as dangerous)?



Interesting thoughts on the bottom-line.


----------



## drache (Dec 20, 2012)

Stygian said:


> snip


 
again you're missing the point, you're essentially saying that because a truck having more mass is going to hurt you more means you don't have to worry about that car speeding to you either which is incredibly dumb


who as memory served had legally obtained it, look you're not winning this you're just moving the goal posts


----------



## Destroyer of Kittens (Dec 21, 2012)

Sacrifice said:


> I'm tired from work so this may all sound very disjointed:
> 
> Since you mentioned suicide: Some of the risk factors include drug and/or alcohol abuse, yes; however, the risk is increased if there is situational stress and access to firearms. 83% of gun-related deaths in the home end in suicide.
> 
> ...



Couple of points before i go to work.

first i apologize for the creators of guns and the massacre of kids comment.  that was unnecessary and im sure you really dont believe that.

second.  Machine guns are already banned Items.  A ar-15 is not a machine gun.  However you say someone would be able to have a 20 round plus magazine if they were a registered collector, thats interesting.  If you had that loophole then the assault rifle ban is pointless.  Ill use Norway as a example.  They had strict gun control yet Brevic was able to aquire his weapons legally through registering with a shooting club "i may be mistaking but im pretty sure thats the case"  so in order for this assault weapon ban to have teeth it would need to be a total ban without loopholes for collectors and shooting club memberships.

Couple of points on my positions.  I am for more regulation of firearms and even though ive bought several weapons from gunshows im not really a fan of how easy and accessable assault rifles are in there current climate.  I support federal registration of all weapon transactions and screening and stricter licensing requirements to purchase these specific weapons. However i do not support a entire ban on a class of weapons.


----------



## Forlong (Dec 21, 2012)

Same response loony Democrats make every time a teenager shoots people: "we have to ban guns!  What Second Amendment?"

Here is an idea that is not completely stupid:

Pass a law requiring civilians to take a gun safety class before buying a gun.  That would solve about 50% of the gun violence problems, not be gigantically stupid, and is Constitutional.

But good ideas are alien to Congress.  This is going to go nowhere.  The court already ruled twice that the Second Amendment means exactly what it says.  Most of the Justices that made that call are still in service.


----------



## drache (Dec 21, 2012)

nothing wrong with collectors having such guns just mandate that the firing pins be destroyed and the recieving bolt be welded closed. Neither damage the presenatation of the gun but there's not way you're fixing that.

It's no different when the military deweaponizes something really


----------



## LouDAgreat (Dec 21, 2012)

Bryan Paulsen said:


> Individuals of all stripes get the pedestal. Collectivists that would subvert individuals based on their whims can go fuck themselves. I stand for myself, and all other individuals that would stand for themselves. Their right of self-ownership is not superior to my own, and mine is not superior to theirs.



What the flying fuck does "Self Ownership" have anything to do with owning a weapon of death? This isn't the society banning you from free expression, free religion, free press, petition or assembly. This is the society keeping millions from having access to lethal weapons that went in contact with such weapons can lead to a civilian gun war should one bullet go off. You live in the middle of  fucking nowhere Arizona, where expansive desert and roadkill are omnipresent. Go to a major city and see how your gun ideas would play out. Stop living in the philosophy world and live in the real world. 

You equate the lack of guns to a lack of the former rights. It's despicable.  to You're entitling yourself to a manufactured weapon intended for a purpose other than defence. 



Bryan Paulsen said:


> As a human being capable of both sympathy and empathy my concern for their welfare supercedes your own, recognizing as I do their absolute ownership of self and the inviolability of my own.



You're response to the families and the victims: "If the teacher had a gun, you're child would still be alive. Buy a gun." Hardly sympathetic to victims of crime. You're answer to crimes like this is to increase guns, not decrease. You want to turn places of education, and peace into war zones. You desire increased escalation of arms. You're twisted idea of empathy and "the self" is despicable. 



			
				Bryan Paulson said:
			
		

> It's a thoroughly rational, ethical understanding of rights you cannot possibly comprehend as an Authoritarian Socialist, because it would negate your entire philosophy.



"Authoritarian Socialist" right there you're credibility is killed. I'm far from a "authoritarian Socialist" There are limits to the state...just like there are limits to the individual. I recognize the amendments other than the 2nd and 10th. I recognize in certain situation private/ cooperative alternatives to state enterprises are necessary. You recognize no limits for individuals, and would go to the extent to give greater power to individuals than the state and society at large. And as for rationality...increasing gun ownership after a tragedy like this, defies both logic and rationality. Only a fucking backwards kick like you would think it's good.



			
				Bryan Paulson said:
			
		

> It is not the duty of the State to protect citizens, so says the US Supreme Court (Castle Rock v. Gonzalez, Bowers v. DeVito, South v. Maryland). Your entire premise that its the State's responsibility is blown out of the water by the damned State itself.





> Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled, 7–2, that a town and its police department could not be sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for failing to enforce a restraining order, which had led to the murder of a woman's three children by her estranged husband.



Oh my, the Supreme Court, a shining beacon of reason. This is what you got  up your sleeve? The Conservative leaning court ruled the state can't be liable for failing to uphold it's duty. Sounds like a cop-out. That's needs to be changed quickly. 

Bryers V Devito. Is a Circuit Appeals court decision, not a Supreme Court decision. Should be overthrown to say it does. 

South v Maryland...1855? Time to update. 

While self defense should be permissible by non lethal means, it should be the first duty of the state to protect its citizens. 



			
				Bryan Paulson said:
			
		

> A symbiotic relationship between humans doesn't necessitate a State, and evolutionary history of humans as hunter-gatherers up through the agricultural stage of development are proof of that due to their communal societies. A commune is, in fact, a state, but not a State. Poof. There goes all of your bullshit.



Asshole, humans evolve, are we hunter gathers in this day and age? No. (But its seems you'd like nothing better to bring America back to the days of Hunter gathers.) There are human connections and communities outside the agrarian dreamworld you keep conjuring in your mind. Most humans are now in centralized urban areas where complex interconnected social relationships persist. The division of labor requires that we depend on others to fulfill a certain role while we fulfill another. We depend on others to feed us, shelter us, manufacture communities and consumables for us, protect us from fires and criminals, educate our children and to ensure that markets run smoothly legally and without any damage. We entrust people with the power and authority to do what's necessary to keep society moving slowly, of course without destroying free speech, free religion, and other non gun rights. 

We  must ensure that individuals attain authority to exact defense of the citizenry, enforcement of the laws, and maintain the welfare of the society. Those that who are entrusted with the authority and power to meet the obligations to the people, and that fail to do so, must move over for those who can.




			
				Bryan Paulson said:
			
		

> Theistic Statist bullshit.
> 
> The State has the State's interests in mind, however nebulous they may be and whatever the fuck they're up to.
> 
> The California Senate, for example, exempted itself from the gun control laws everybody else must obey. That sure as hell does not qualify as "having all of our interests in mind". No, it qualifies as having the interests of the ruling class in mind.



Well then, California residents should be up in front of the California Senate building and demanding that exemption end. See how Democracy works? There's no point in it if you don't take an active approach to it. State assemblies, and the U.S Congress always exempt themselves from shit we have no choice to do. That's why an honest media and political activism works to point out those hypocrisies, and demand those exemptions end. Government doesn't work without transparency and accountability. Unfortunately, the U.S Federal style of government disperse transparency and accountability. 

Regardless, these instances of government failing to live up to its duties and to project ideal examples doesn't mean we end government altogether, turn inward and rely on our ourselves and our immediate neighbors...You enact reforms. You demand institutional and structural change. Changes to the procedures of government, changes to the culture of government and bureaucracy. Implement innovative ideas that could lead to greater transparency, accountability and more effective governing. Sometimes less governing may be the answer, if it works, then enact it.


I've laid out a step by step basis for the morality of gun ownership. It stems from the principle of self-ownership. I will break it down into steps for you: 



			
				Bryan Paulson said:
			
		

> First, establishing self-defense:
> 
> #1) The individual is in absolute ownership of themself.



O.k 


			
				Bryan Paulson said:
			
		

> #2) An individual in ownership of themself is responsible for their general welfare.



Since, we're not a state of nature, I'd add individuals seeking their "general welfare" can gather together, elect a government and empower leaders the responsibility for ensuring a continuing welfare for the society as a whole.



			
				Bryan Paulson said:
			
		

> #3) Self-defense is a rational pursuit in securing one's general welfare.



If you're self defense and "rational pursuit in securing your general welfare" potentially endangers the welfare of others...as in owning assault weapons, sorry, you're self defense becomes limited. The state therefore assumes the responsibility of ensuring your elf defence.

#4) Effective, efficient means of self-defense ensure one's general welfare most capably.[/QUOTE]

This gives absolutely no justification for the ownership of assault weapons. Assault weapons are beyond defense. Any defensive weapon that is also an offensive weapon cannot be used for defense, for it has the potential to cause lethal harm to others if in the hands of psycho individuals. Therefore, Assault weapons are out. I'd even go so far as to say handguns. however, handguns are a more reasonable idea of "self defence" than assault weapons.

While I buy your whole "self-owernship" premise. The stretch you make from self-ownership to owning weapons of mass death, is unacceptable. Reform your logic. Invent a new defensive weapon that incapacitates for an extended period of time. That way if a nutjob decides to use it, the most he can do is go on a wild incapacitation spree. He'd have to go one step further than this weapon to actually kill people. 





			
				Bryan Paulson said:
			
		

> #1) The individual is in absolute ownership of themself.
> #2) An individual in ownership of themself recognizes the self-ownership of other individuals.



O.k



			
				Bryan Paulson said:
			
		

> #3) Recognizing the illegitimacy of coercion in the face of self-ownership, aggression is immoral.



Coercion can be used to prevent individuals from endagering others...ie. preventing assault weapons ownership. 



			
				bryan Paulson said:
			
		

> #4) Responses to aggression must have in mind the self-ownership of individuals unrelated to the aggressor.



The state can be the one who responds. New non lethal weapons can ensure that aggressors not be lethally killed and be brought to justice or undergo rehabilitation.



			
				Bryan Paulson said:
			
		

> #5) Legitimate self-defense must be focused on the aggressor.



Alrighty.



			
				Bryan Pauslon said:
			
		

> #6) Illegitimate self-defense would not be solely focused on the aggressor.



Assault weapons, being illegitimate self defense is more for fulfilling a psychological power deficiency than for actual protection.



			
				Bryan Paulson said:
			
		

> Guns? Absolutely possible to use morally due to the function. Weapons of mass destruction? Not possible. The latter has no possible means of discrimination.



Don't play stupid. Assault weapons  are mass causality inflicting tools that go above and beyond defense. They were devised FOR THE MILITARY...FOR WAR SITUATIONS. What the fuck is a weapon used for war doing in the hands of civilians...in public? In schools? In churches? You intentionally ignores the original purpose of these guns, and disingenuously ascribe a right of self-ownership to these weapons. A proliferation of assault weapons is neither moral nor ethical, and is downright irresponsible to children and public space. 



			
				Bryan Paulson said:
			
		

> Feel free to take the logic to task. Good luck.



This isn't logic, This is fucking crap.


----------



## LouDAgreat (Dec 21, 2012)

Bryan Paulson said:
			
		

> A state will always exist due to the communal nature of humans, the State is unnecessary and parasitic. Weapons of mass destruction would be owned collectively, and all individuals would have a say in their usage. Laws do not disappear in the absence of a State, they would arise as the state needs them. Society is flexible and adaptable, more so than distant centralized power.



lol, I love how you say that when the state disappears citizens will magically have a say in what happens to them. What legal apparatus would exist to ensure that each person had a legal say? Who would be entrusted to ensure these weapons don't go in the wrong hands? What historical precedent can you give where weapons of mass destruction were passed on to a stateless society? 



			
				Bryan Paulson said:
			
		

> As it is now, no such say exists. At all. Period. The military could nuke a country tomorrow, and you have no say in the matter.



The fact you actually think the military would do that speaks says alot about your hysteria mindset. And what's more astonishing is you think individuals will actually go along with your libertarian legal framework and not try to nuke the fuck out of people to attain more power for themselves. 




			
				Bryan Paulson said:
			
		

> Wrong. Demand that the individual is the representative of themself as an extension of their self-ownership and their participation be voluntary, and their behavior regulated by their surrounding society, not an inescapable State beyond their direct influence.



Advocate a state of anarchy? Get the fuck out of here. People aren't as resourceful as you. 



			
				Bryan Paulson said:
			
		

> Advocates for democracy are the biggest fans on Earth of abusing minorities. Color me entirely unimpressed with your desire to put minorities in shackles.



Anarchists are the biggest dipshits in the world. You put yourself in the minority with your horrible ideas and "logic". 




			
				Bryan Paulson said:
			
		

> Human history says otherwise. Human history says the State is a multi-general institution used to ensure control over the denizens under its juridisction.



Your idea of control is twisted. It's hardly control. The state with its vast resources works to provide necessary utilities, institutions, and a legal framework to ensure prosperity and harmony for this generation and generations to come. Only a loner like you would see that as vicious. 



			
				Bryan Paulson said:
			
		

> Society has no such compulsion, no such claim to your person, and is not detached from the individual.
> 
> Conflating society with the State makes you a _bona fide_ dipshit.



In your dreamworld, there is no society, only you, your farm, and your gun. And some fictional legal framework similar to the articles of confederation...except weaker. Society is more supportive of a state than it will ever be supportive of your delusional fucking libertarian fantasies. 



> People will always collectivize against existential threats. They'll do it even in the face of a State that is wholly evil - Joseph Stalin had tremendous popular support in WW2 despite performing purges in the preceeding years. Your argument holds no merit whatsoever.



The state, with its centralization of resources, command and control, expedited a more effective response to totalitarianism, than your fucking minuteman militia ever could. 



			
				Bryan Paulson said:
			
		

> And it's not a matter of trust, it's a matter of coercion. There is no alternative. The State tells you they're going to handle it, and you're going to do as you're told. Due to the infinite well of hope people draw from all they can do is "trust" it to work, because they're not afforded alternatives.



Competing claims to sovereignty and control leads to chaos, thus coercion is necessary to ensure the best possible government for all. See the Civil War. There's a lot of similarities between your mindset and the mindset of Southern Secessionists. 




> "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." - J. Dalberg-Acton



That's why people like Adam Lanza run out and shoot schools cause they got the power to do it. Because of you amd your gun loving ilk, you gave Adam Lanza the power to kill children. Congratulations. Give yourself a pat on the back for putting more gun victims in crime statistics. 

You don't keep repeating the same mistake in the hopes that suddenly it'll work out next time. You are endorsing insanity, not a solution. We've tried electing new batches of Statists, *and nothing changes*.
[/QUOTE]

Ever heard of try, try and next time you may succeed? Circumstances change, new viewpoints and perspectives can add a new facet to a solution and make it more effective. Your defeatist attitude prevents you from believing in innovation in governance. 



			
				Bryan Paulson said:
			
		

> People would not be on their own without the State. They would have their communities, just like they have for all of human history every single time a State has failed, and before the State ever existed. People are not wholly dependent on the State, unless that's where they derive their livelihood - such people are parasites.



And in almost every single community ever there's been a figure head, a voice of the community that's lead communities to pursue their interests more effectively. the State attempts to mobilize resources and use them for maximum benefit for all its denizens. And in all communities, there's been an inherent duty for each individual to maximize his own efforts to ensure that he and the rest of the community to achieve maximum benefits. 




			
				Bryan Paulson said:
			
		

> I have no worship of the 2nd Amendment, I use it as a means to an end. If I "worship" anything it's the right of self-ownership and all that it entails.



You worship guns. 



			
				Bryan Paulson said:
			
		

> Gun ownership, of all varieties, fits the bill. Weapons of mass destruction (including bombs and grenades) do not fulfill this criteria due to inherent collateral damage involved in their usage. I covered this earlier in a step-by-step logical argument that even you should be able to understand.
> 
> (Collateral damage can include property, something else that stems from self-ownership, and is therefore unethical and immoral to destroy)



And the collateral damage caused by Adam Lanzas with assault weapons don't count? Please. Although not on the level of nukes, you can't deny Assault Weapons in public places will cause mass collateral damage. 



			
				Bryan Paulson said:
			
		

> Without the State people would be forced to involve themselves in their community, and they would also be socially empowered, thereby incentivizing participation. Society would continue, and thrive. A state (note the small "s" you ignorant faux-former-libertarian asshole that doesn't know shit about the ideology you claim to have formerly adhered to) would naturally arise that directly represents the individual, and not clowns that feel a need to control others from a distance while giving themselves special privileges.



You can incentivise participation without eliminating the state. You're noble ideas of citizenry and individualism would be poison in country with 300 million people. A state concentrates accountability, transparency for policies and laws implemented. 300 million civilians...try to hold those people in power. Try to hold some power hungry asshole in the post state world to do whatever the fuck he wants. Try to hold a dozen, a hundred, a few thousand reckless individuals hell bent accumulating property for themselves. You give too much credit to individuals. A State, is one individual with millions of eyes watching. 

I knew plenty of libertarianism...I realized the consequences of it were too dire to implement in reality.  You have a long way to go son. If you grow your brain instead of your muscles, maybe you'd see how flawed it truly is.. 



			
				Bryan Paulson said:
			
		

> The State has already enslaved us by convincing dumbasses like you that they have special privileges you are not entitled to. In no society in which rights are doled out unevenly can one be considered free. If you are not the equal of your fellow man, then you are a slave to the man that possesses rights you do not.



A privilege to own weapons of mass destruction exclusively? A privilege to use resources and property to do things in the best interest of all people? Dear me, how can I be so stupid to think such dreadful things? 



			
				Bryan Paulson said:
			
		

> Sigh. Arguing with a former libertarian that doesn't know the difference between a State (by definition, a Nation-State) and a state (social communes, et al) is tiring. You are obviously not an individual that ever bothered to actually read about the philosophy you attempted to adhere to.



The state in your world eventually becomes a nation state, or at the very least seeks its own nation state with its own authority. 



			
				Bryan Paulson said:
			
		

> A state would see _individual_ influence on the application of weapons of mass destruction owned by the _collective_.



This makes no sense. Your theory exists in theory only..no real world application to say it would actually happen. Whose the command that enforces the will of the people? Every individual is equal. Who would rise up to a hierarchical position to say they have the authority to control these weapons and not others. How would you know the individual is qualified on the issues to take care of these weapons?



			
				Bryan Paulson said:
			
		

> The State has no such distinction. The usage of any weaponry owned by the State is not in any way controlled or influenced by individuals outside of the State. It's a special club, and even the most useful of idiots (ie: you) are not invited.



Seeing not all individuals have expertise on the use of weapons, the state assumes full control of the weapons. We have a say on how weapons are used through democracy. Elections. George Bush...War in Iraq...Barak Obama, End to War in Iraq. See? 



			
				Bryan Paulson said:
			
		

> People should not be limited in their means of executing moral self-defense against aggressors, lethal or otherwise. Period.



Advocating an environment of potential mass killing. Disgusting Owning an assault weapon is not fucking moral..it's abominable. It's no wonder why you want guns, because in your sicko world everyone is out for themselves and willing to kill for it. 



			
				Bryan Paulson said:
			
		

> Any individual executing immoral self-defense should be punished accordingly.



Every assault weapons owner should be punished then.


----------



## drache (Dec 21, 2012)

I'd just ignore him Lou, obviously he's just a kid that thinks libertarianism is cool, read a philosophy book and thinks that makes him smart. Ayn Rand is probably his personal hero or something


----------



## LouDAgreat (Dec 21, 2012)

Kittens said:
			
		

> To the people who support Assault rifle bans because of their capacity of killing, would you also support a alchohol ban? Alchohol kills around 75,000 people a year in the united states, around 20,000 of them was do to drunk driving. Now following that logic Alchohol doesnt really perform any function in society much like Assault rifles. Should we ban alchohol to curb drunk driving?



Assault weapons are completely unnecessary and beyond the intention of defense. You can fulfill your need for defense with a handgun. There's less lethality with it, but just enough to stop any criminal in your wake. You're not fighting an army. If you're allow assault weapons, then you beget the need for assault weapons in the first place.

As for alcohol, responsible consumption of alcohol is not the same as responsible use of assault weapons. For one, it only takes a pull of a trigger to unleash an instant massacre. Drunkenness is steady buildup. There's subtle differences between guns and alcohol. 

Personally, I'd enact a campaign against alcohol the same as we do for cigarettes. Ban commercial television advertisements, and go on a widespread campaign of the affects that alcohol does to you with firsthand accounts from victims of drunk driving and alcoholic abuse.


----------



## Stygian (Dec 21, 2012)

drache said:


> again you're missing the point, you're essentially saying that because a truck having more mass is going to hurt you more means you don't have to worry about that car speeding to you either which is incredibly dumb



You're clearly either being deliberately idiotic, or you truly are an idiot.





> who as memory served had legally obtained it, look you're not winning this you're just moving the goal posts



Care to prove it?
The weapons were illegally sold to them, AKA a black market deal.


----------



## Destroyer of Kittens (Dec 21, 2012)

LouDAgreat said:


> Assault weapons are completely unnecessary and beyond the intention of defense. You can fulfill your need for defense with a handgun. There's less lethality with it, but just enough to stop any criminal in your wake. You're not fighting an army. If you're allow assault weapons, then you beget the need for assault weapons in the first place.
> 
> As for alcohol, responsible consumption of alcohol is not the same as responsible use of assault weapons. For one, it only takes a pull of a trigger to unleash an instant massacre. Drunkenness is steady buildup. There's subtle differences between guns and alcohol.
> 
> Personally, I'd enact a campaign against alcohol the same as we do for cigarettes. Ban commercial television advertisements, and go on a widespread campaign of the affects that alcohol does to you with firsthand accounts from victims of drunk driving and alcoholic abuse.



The fact you view assualt weapons as unnecessary wont jive with the morality and legality of banning it.  its easy to say something is unnecessary when you dont own or partake in a activity and much more difficult to support banning a activity you yourself do.  the reason I bring up alchohol is because It is much much more popular and could also be argued as unecessary much as assault rifles and with a higher death count to boot.

You meantion responsible use of alchohol and responsible use of assault rifles.  A responsible use of a assault rifle isnt going on a killing spree, its taking it out to a deserted field and firing it down-range at whatever target you choose and putting it up in your safe after you are done with it and not touching it again for 6 months "or mabey thats just me".

That said.  It should be reminded.  99.99 percent of people who consume alcholol are actually responsible enough to not cause fatalities.  the same statistic is true for assault rifles.  

another point.  I generally agree that a assault rifle is probably a horrible choice for defence,  it cant be carried with you and has a high chance of piercing your target and hitting someone you dont intend.  I think the best home defence weapon would be a Semi-Auto 12 gauge shotgun of some sort.


----------



## iander (Dec 21, 2012)

Obviously socio-economic factors are more responsible for gun violence but I don't see a problem with more regulations of firearms.


----------



## Rivers (Dec 21, 2012)

iander said:


> Obviously socio-economic factors are more responsible for gun violence but I don't see a problem with more regulations of firearms.



Indeed. 

There's NO WAY America can fix all these socio-economic problems so might as well snap the spear point of gun homicides (guns), and make access to guns much tighter for the civilian. 

Its not going to stop violence and crime but whenever a disturbed individual tries to jab at society with their spear of rage, it's less likely to have 30 rounds at its point of impact.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Dec 21, 2012)

Rivers said:


> Indeed.
> 
> There's NO WAY America can fix all these socio-economic problems so might as well snap the spear point of gun homicides (guns), and make access to guns much tighter for the civilian.
> 
> Its not going to stop violence and crime but whenever a disturbed individual tries to jab at society with their spear of rage, it's less likely to have 30 rounds at its point of impact.



May be one of the stupidest fucking things I've heard said yet. "There's no way to fix the real problem/it's too hard, let's just put a shitty band aid on it!"


----------



## Inuhanyou (Dec 21, 2012)

So...the NRA put out a statement blaming everyone and everything but themselves  expected.

When Joe Scarborough actually changes his stance on guns, that's when you know you've got a problem.


----------



## neodragzero (Dec 21, 2012)

Destroyer of Kittens said:


> The fact you view assualt weapons as unnecessary wont jive with the morality and legality of banning it.  its easy to say something is unnecessary when you dont own or partake in a activity and much more difficult to support banning a activity you yourself do.



I'd suggest reading this:




> the reason I bring up alchohol is because It is much much more popular and could also be argued as unecessary much as assault rifles and with a higher death count to boot.



Except that you're ignoring the context of what alcohol is intended for compared to the designed intent and statistically shown usage of firearms.


----------



## Rivers (Dec 21, 2012)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> May be one of the stupidest fucking things I've heard said yet.



  

How long will it take to massively improve Unemployment? Social inequality? Poverty? Shit health care? 5 years? 10 years? 20 years?

Till then Pro-gunners are:

*"No dont touch my precious gun! Fix EVERYTHING else wrong with society FIRST! 

Surely its far, far easier to fix unemployment than having say place higher age restriction and a 30 day waiting period with a thorough background / mental screening to get a gun etc.

No, no make United States a utopia of society FIRST....before putting ANY gun control...till then just get USED to the yearly shooting massacres and having the highest gun crime in the developed countries..."
*

How bloody, fucking naive....



Inuhanyou said:


> So...*the NRA put out a statement blaming everyone and everything *but themselves  expected.



Just highlights the arguments many of those gun lovers hide behind. EVEN in this thread.


----------



## Rivers (Dec 21, 2012)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> "There's no way to fix the *real problem*/it's too hard, let's just put a shitty band aid on it!"



Are you so simple-minded!?

Do you actually think Gun violence has *only one other problem source* besides guns? 

Do you think the government hasnt been trying to deal with for instance unemployment between gun massacres? As I said you need to curb the point which is doing the most killing immediately, or do you want people to accept the annual shooting massacres till decade-long problems like social inequality or inadequate health care are 100% perfect (unlikely)?

You just implied you DONT EVER want to change current gun control...??


----------



## Inuhanyou (Dec 21, 2012)

The NRA has a tight hold on the people it woos unfortunately  Mental health check, gun culture, check, guns themselves oh no can't touch that with a 10 foot pole. Even though we know this chick was obsessed with the damn things and left them easily accessible to her kid


----------



## Mider T (Dec 21, 2012)

Alright, I support gun ownership and the NRA even pissed ME off today.  The statement was incredibly insulting and insensitive.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Dec 21, 2012)

^ Who doesn't support gun ownership? Have you not been listening to every debate you've had since the incident?


----------



## Mider T (Dec 21, 2012)

Lemme rephrase that, I support the gun ownership laws that we have atm.  Semi-Automatic rifles and such.


----------



## ShadowReij (Dec 21, 2012)

Inuhanyou said:


> So...the NRA put out a statement blaming everyone and everything but themselves  expected.
> 
> When Joe Scarborough actually changes his stance on guns, that's when you know you've got a problem.



Annnd this shocks no one. No doubt the NRA have been hoping nothing will be done just as it had for the last couple of national coverage shootings this year. But now that there is actual rumbling coming from below the ground they want to put a stop to it quickly.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Dec 21, 2012)

*NRA calls for guns in every school and classroom, demands much looser gun laws, blames video games, Hollywood, Liberal activists for Sandy Hook shooting*


----------



## Inuhanyou (Dec 21, 2012)

An illuminating article i found very informative. I'll post some excerpts.





> The U.S. gun homicide rate is _30 times_ that of France or Australia, according to the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime, and 12 times higher than the average for other developed countries.





> To understand how staggeringly high this number is, compare it to the rate in other rich countries. England and Wales have about 50 gun homicides a year — 3 percent of our rate per 100,000 people. Many people believe that America is simply a more violent, individualistic society. But again, the data clarify. For most crimes — theft, burglary, robbery, assault — the United States is within the range of other advanced countries. The category in which the U.S. rate is magnitudes higher is gun homicides.






> There is clear evidence that tightening laws — even in highly individualistic countries with long traditions of gun ownership — can reduce gun violence. In Australia, after a 1996 ban on all automatic and semiautomatic weapons — a real ban, not like the one we enacted in 1994 with 600-plus exceptions — gun-related homicides dropped 59 percent over the next decade. The rate of suicide by firearm plummeted 65 percent. (Almost 20,000 Americans die each year using guns to commit suicide — a method that is much more successful than other forms of suicide.)






> The data in social science are rarely this clear. They strongly suggest that we have so much more gun violence than other countries because we have far more permissive laws than others regarding the sale and possession of guns. With 5 percent of the world’s population, the United States has 50 percent of the guns.


----------



## ShadowReij (Dec 21, 2012)

Inuhanyou said:


> *NRA calls for guns in every school and classroom, demands much looser gun laws, blames video games, Hollywood, Liberal activists for Sandy Hook shooting*


Yes because it's always video games, Hollywood, and liberals. 


Inuhanyou said:


> An illuminating article i found very informative. I'll post some excerpts.



Well no shit Sherlock. Our people just have a habit of ignoring facts.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Dec 21, 2012)

Or twist them when it suits them


----------



## ShadowReij (Dec 21, 2012)

Inuhanyou said:


> Or twist them when it suits them



When twisted they're no longer called facts.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Dec 21, 2012)

I guess...


----------



## Bryan Paulsen (Dec 21, 2012)

LouDAgreat said:


> What the flying fuck does "Self Ownership" have anything to do with owning a weapon of death?



The right to one secure one's self-defense stems from the right of self-ownership. 



> You equate the lack of guns to a lack of the former rights. It's despicable.  to You're entitling yourself to a manufactured weapon intended for a purpose other than defence.



All weapons can potentially be used aggressively. That includes human fists and feet. This doesn't form a counterargument.



> You're response to the families and the victims: "If the teacher had a gun, you're child would still be alive. Buy a gun." Hardly sympathetic to victims of crime. You're answer to crimes like this is to increase guns, not decrease. You want to turn places of education, and peace into war zones. You desire increased escalation of arms. You're twisted idea of empathy and "the self" is despicable.



If someone had a gun, then casualties probably would've been less. There is not a person on here, except maybe you, that thinks more gun control would've prevented this from happening.

Sympathy for the victims does not necessitate a need to punish the majority that have done nothing wrong.

Sociopaths turn schools and theatres into war zones. Not guns. That school, and the Aurora, CO theatre were quite peaceful until a sociopath came along. 

When I see someone practicing open carry in the grocery store (it's happened 2 out of the last 3 times I've went) it doesn't become a war zone. Unlike you, people have functioning brains.



> "Authoritarian Socialist" right there you're credibility is killed. I'm far from a "authoritarian Socialist" There are limits to the state...just like there are limits to the individual. I recognize the amendments other than the 2nd and 10th.



When you assign special privileges to the State it becomes limitless. Period. You think _voting_ is a limiter, which is, of course, hilarious.

I recognize *equal* limits for *all* individuals. You don't, as per your admission of special State rights.



> Oh my, the Supreme Court, a shining beacon of reason. This is what you got  up your sleeve? The Conservative leaning court ruled the state can't be liable for failing to uphold it's duty. Sounds like a cop-out. That's needs to be changed quickly.



The "Conservative Court" ruled in line with judicial precedent. It has not overturned Appellate court rulings that are line with the precedent.

Your notion that it is the State's responsibility is refuted in its entirety by the judicial system. 



> Bryers V Devito. Is a Circuit Appeals court decision, not a Supreme Court decision. Should be overthrown to say it does.
> 
> South v Maryland...1855? Time to update.



"Time to update". Are you retarded? Do you know what "judicial precedent" is? For fuck's sake, I'm dealing with a newbie.



> While self defense should be permissible by non lethal means, it should be the first duty of the state to protect its citizens.



You live in a State that tells you that it isn't their duty. It doesn't give a flying fuck what you think, because that's their special privilege you gave it.

And the idea that self-defense should only be permissible by non-lethal means is both stupid and dangerous. If you are defending yourself, and you have to hesitate due to potential punishment if you _efficiently_ defend yourself, then it is a worthless concept that puts to question the moral legitimacy of self-defense.

It is obviously you do not, even for the briefest of moments, consider the implications of what you're saying.



> Asshole, humans evolve, are we hunter gathers in this day and age? No. (But its seems you'd like nothing better to bring America back to the days of Hunter gathers.) There are human connections and communities outside the agrarian dreamworld you keep conjuring in your mind. Most humans are now in centralized urban areas where complex interconnected social relationships persist. The division of labor requires that we depend on others to fulfill a certain role while we fulfill another. We depend on others to feed us, shelter us, manufacture communities and consumables for us, protect us from fires and criminals, educate our children and to ensure that markets run smoothly legally and without any damage. We entrust people with the power and authority to do what's necessary to keep society moving slowly, of course without destroying free speech, free religion, and other non gun rights.



Humans evolve, and yet what evolution apparently gave us is an apparatus, the State, that has killed more people than anything else in human history. Including religion. It has violated more human rights than anything else in human history. Including religion.

The State, being divorced from the people it supposedly represents (even Marx realized this), is not desirable. No end game that empowers the people includes the State, both the far left and far right recognize this, they merely differ in their understanding of property rights. 

But instead of questioning the need for such an apparatus, and why society cannot be complex without it, you assume that its existence is necessary _a priori_. This is illogical due to anthropology, human cultures naturally became more complex without the creation of Nation-States.



> We  must ensure that individuals attain authority to exact defense of the citizenry, enforcement of the laws, and maintain the welfare of the society. Those that who are entrusted with the authority and power to meet the obligations to the people, and that fail to do so, must move over for those who can.



Individuals naturally have the authority due to their inherent self-ownership. They will perform the other functions described due to it being a rational enterprise.

The idea that they have to vest their authority to someone else does not follow from the premise. Fix the logic. Now.



> Well then, California residents should be up in front of the California Senate building and demanding that exemption end. See how Democracy works? There's no point in it if you don't take an active approach to it. State assemblies, and the U.S Congress always exempt themselves from shit we have no choice to do. That's why an honest media and political activism works to point out those hypocrisies, and demand those exemptions end. Government doesn't work without transparency and accountability. Unfortunately, the U.S Federal style of government disperse transparency and accountability.



Yeah, they should just wait until their next chance to vote, at which point they can elect people that say one thing and do another. Then they wait another few years. Repeat _ad infinitum_.

You are aware of the corruption, and yet continue to endorse it. The level of faith you show in the State is purely theistic, devoid of logic or reason.



> ...You enact reforms. You demand institutional and structural change. Changes to the procedures of government, changes to the culture of government and bureaucracy.



Reforms are hilariously slow and inefficient, such as is always the case with bureaucracy.

Remind me again of a State in history that saw corruption get the boot purely by peaceful means. You know, placing demands and the like. Voting, etc.



> Since, we're not a state of nature, I'd add individuals seeking their "general welfare" can gather together, elect a government and empower leaders the responsibility for ensuring a continuing welfare for the society as a whole.



They can, so long as there is no coercion involved.



> If you're self defense and "rational pursuit in securing your general welfare" potentially endangers the welfare of others...as in owning assault weapons, sorry, you're self defense becomes limited. The state therefore assumes the responsibility of ensuring your elf defence.



There is nothing about an assault rifle by its lonesome that "endangers the welfare of others" when used in a moral manner of self-defense. It does not necessitate collateral damage that would subvert the self-ownership of innocent individuals.

Self-defense can only be morally and logically limited by banning means that cause collateral damage regardless of usage.



> This gives absolutely no justification for the ownership of assault weapons. Assault weapons are beyond defense. Any defensive weapon that is also an offensive weapon cannot be used for defense, for it has the potential to cause lethal harm to others if in the hands of psycho individuals. Therefore, Assault weapons are out. I'd even go so far as to say handguns. however, handguns are a more reasonable idea of "self defence" than assault weapons.



Do we need to list the number of objects that can be lethal in the hands of "psycho individuals"? What you posted does not form a criticism of the point, and is summarily dismissed as a red herring.



> Coercion can be used to prevent individuals from endagering others...ie. preventing assault weapons ownership.



You cannot subvert the self-ownership of individuals that have displayed no aggression. Acquiring an assault weapon does not constitute an act of aggression.

Acquiring a weapon that has a usage that will cause collateral damage by virtue of its usage would qualify as aggression. There is a very clear, logical difference.



> The state can be the one who responds. New non lethal weapons can ensure that aggressors not be lethally killed and be brought to justice or undergo rehabilitation.



No. The state cannot deny the individual the right to their self-defense. There is no logical justification for why self-defense must be non-lethal.



> Assault weapons, being illegitimate self defense is more for fulfilling a psychological power deficiency than for actual protection.



Red herring. Point dismissed.



> Don't play stupid. Assault weapons  are mass causality inflicting tools that go above and beyond defense. They were devised FOR THE MILITARY...FOR WAR SITUATIONS.



The "original purpose" of *all guns* was for the military. Prior to guns, it was swords. Point dismissed for being less than rigorous in logical application.

Self-ownership creates a condition for owning all means of self-defense reasonably employed in a moral manner. Assault rifles, being precision tools that do not create collateral damage upon proper usage, fit this standard.

Now go back and fix your points. The point where you claimed coercion can be displayed in cases of actions not inherently aggressive particularly damning, and undermines the right of self-ownership.

I am less than impressed.


----------



## Bryan Paulsen (Dec 21, 2012)

LouDAgreat said:


> lol, I love how you say that when the state disappears citizens will magically have a say in what happens to them. What legal apparatus would exist to ensure that each person had a legal say? Who would be entrusted to ensure these weapons don't go in the wrong hands? What historical precedent can you give where weapons of mass destruction were passed on to a stateless society?



When the USSR broke up a number of its weapons were still in satellite republics no longer under the Soviet State, in turning creating weapons of mass destruction that did not effectively belong to Russia, but neither to any other State. Due to treaties they were eventually returned, but that wasn't a compulsory action by the citizens of those republics - why you think it is that a State cannot qualify as "the wrong hands" is beyond me.

They managed to not find their way into the wrong hands, because people aren't stupid and know how dangerous they are. You act like the State is there to protect against some James Bond scenario.



> The fact you actually think the military would do that speaks says alot about your hysteria mindset. And what's more astonishing is you think individuals will actually go along with your libertarian legal framework and not try to nuke the fuck out of people to attain more power for themselves.



Individuals still wouldn't own nukes, because a state can effectively limit them for moral and logical reasons. Refer to previous argument discussing immoral means of self-defense.

Aside from that, individuals wouldn't nuke eachother for the same reason States don't. You are a dipshit if you think States are super-special entities not beholden to the human need for survival.



> Advocate a state of anarchy? Get the fuck out of here. People aren't as resourceful as you.



I advocate a state, not a State. Whether that is purely communal, or has something of a unanimously accepted leader is fine. 

People would pool their resources regardless of the State. It's happened every time a State has failed in history.



> Your idea of control is twisted. It's hardly control. The state with its vast resources works to provide necessary utilities, institutions, and a legal framework to ensure prosperity and harmony for this generation and generations to come. Only a loner like you would see that as vicious.



Vast resources obtained via coercion to ensure prosperity and harmony for generations to come. Self-sustaining control for generations to come. How nice it is to have your hands on the power of level when we have useful idiots like you that view the controllers as benevolent deities.

I'm amazed the State doesn't pay you for propaganda efforts.



> In your dreamworld, there is no society, only you, your farm, and your gun. And some fictional legal framework similar to the articles of confederation...except weaker. Society is more supportive of a state than it will ever be supportive of your delusional fucking libertarian fantasies.



"Supportive"? Society, historically, has never been given a choice when it comes to the question of a State. They have always been *forced* to accept it due to aggression. Any idea of "supporting" the only option is nonsense.



> Competing claims to sovereignty and control leads to chaos, thus coercion is necessary to ensure the best possible government for all. See the Civil War. There's a lot of similarities between your mindset and the mindset of Southern Secessionists.



If you believe in personal autonomy, then you must be coerced, else chaos erupts. Terrible logic, but let's play along.

If an individual competes with the claim that a State owns them, then they must be coerced and subjugated by force in order to ensure the betterment of all?

That is some horrifically ass backwards logic that just justified every State-sponsored human rights abuse _in history_. Congratulations Lou, you are every bit the Authoritarian Socialist I rightly labeled you. In your eyes everything the State does is for the people, and correspondingly beyond moral reproach.



> Ever heard of try, try and next time you may succeed? Circumstances change, new viewpoints and perspectives can add a new facet to a solution and make it more effective. Your defeatist attitude prevents you from believing in innovation in governance.



When the results are the exact same as last time you don't keep trying to put that square peg in the round hole. You try a new solution.

It's reality. Just because your God, the State, is a collosal fuck-up doesn't mean you keep trying it repeatedly and rejecting the evidence. 

Nothing innovates slower than the State. Complex organisms are inefficient in comparison to simpler ones.



> And in almost every single community ever there's been a figure head, a voice of the community that's lead communities to pursue their interests more effectively. the State attempts to mobilize resources and use them for maximum benefit for all its denizens.



Do I need to list examples of the State spending money that most definitely was not for "for the maximum benefit for all its denizens"?

The State mobilizes resources to fit the State's agenda, which is not nearly as clear as what you think it is. Every time Congress votes to raise their pay it sure as hell not for the "maximum benefit for all its denizens".



> And in all communities, there's been an inherent duty for each individual to maximize his own efforts to ensure that he and the rest of the community to achieve maximum benefits.



That inherent duty belongs solely to the individual, the community can make no such claim to his "efforts". Unless, of course, you are advocating Communism now, which would dismiss the right to the fruit of your labor. That wouldn't surprise me much at this point.



> And the collateral damage caused by Adam Lanzas with assault weapons don't count? Please. Although not on the level of nukes, you can't deny Assault Weapons in public places will cause mass collateral damage.



Acts of aggression do not form an argument against the ability to use an assault rifle in moral defense.



> You can incentivise participation without eliminating the state. You're noble ideas of citizenry and individualism would be poison in country with 300 million people. A state concentrates accountability, transparency for policies and laws implemented. 300 million civilians...try to hold those people in power. Try to hold some power hungry asshole in the post state world to do whatever the fuck he wants. Try to hold a dozen, a hundred, a few thousand reckless individuals hell bent accumulating property for themselves. You give too much credit to individuals. A State, is one individual with millions of eyes watching.



A State concentrates accountability and transparency for policies and laws implemented? The same State that you, yourself, recognize as corrupt and corruptable?

Ahahahahahaha. 

And one State doesn't need to represent 350,000,000 people. It's ludicrous nonsense, an archaic parasite only kept about due to its monopoly on power. The polarization of American politics highlights the point.



> A privilege to own weapons of mass destruction exclusively? A privilege to use resources and property to do things in the best interest of all people? Dear me, how can I be so stupid to think such dreadful things?



I love how you act like the privilege to own weapons of mass destruction exclusively is a good thing for the State (an entity you have already admitted to be corrupt), but awful for a state in which everyone would share in the ownership. You are, without a doubt, a full on theist when it comes to all things Statist.

The ability to rob from minorities to favor the majority is not a good thing. It is inherently unethical, and a disgusting, repugnant action that should be rightly condemned.

Never mind that the State tends to monopolize industries, putting resources and property into the hands of a select few on the backs of the many.

Your entire position is morally bankrupt, ethically unsound, and illogical.



> The state in your world eventually becomes a nation state, or at the very least seeks its own nation state with its own authority.



The states in history that eventually became a State did so at the point of a lance. Native Americans, Medieval Ireland, et al. The list is extensive. They did not do it by choice, they were slaughtered into compliance.

This is what you're arguing for.



> This makes no sense. Your theory exists in theory only..no real world application to say it would actually happen. Whose the command that enforces the will of the people? Every individual is equal. Who would riswe up to a hierarchical position to say they have the authority to control these weapons and not others. How would you know the individual is qualified on the issues to take care of these weapons?



The people that would "rise up" would be the ones with universal acceptance, and given the leader would have no inherent right to violate the rights of others (again, unlike the State), this wouldn't cause massive problems.

The people can figure out who is qualified and who isn't by examining the human resources available.



> Seeing not all individuals have expertise on the use of weapons, the state assumes full control of the weapons. We have a say on how weapons are used through democracy. Elections. George Bush...War in Iraq...Barak Obama, End to War in Iraq. See?



Elections do not do jack shit to change the usage of weapons.

Bush -> Drone Strikes.

Obama -> More Drone Strikes.

Remind me again how we have say in how these weapons are used with democracy. Spin me a fantastic tale of how voting for Obama is what "ended" the Iraq War. 

What asinine logic. Good grief.



> Advocating an environment of potential mass killing. Disgusting Owning an assault weapon is not fucking moral..it's abominable. It's no wonder why you want guns, because in your sicko world everyone is out for themselves and willing to kill for it.



In my "sicko world" people are only "willing to kill" *in self-defense*. An "environment of potential mass killing" exists regardless of assault rifles, the only question is the means used and the sociopath behind it.

Your _appeals to emotion_ are dead on arrival.



> Every assault weapons owner should be punished then.



Do you want to take a guess why this is illogical, or do I need to explain it? Again.


----------



## neodragzero (Dec 21, 2012)

Bryan Paulsen said:


> All weapons can potentially be used aggressively. That includes human fists and feet. This doesn't form a counterargument.



No, it does form a counterargument that hands and feet are not designed to shoot out metal shards meant to create a large load of human bodies. Your argument in general is a bad rhetoric as far as design intent and statistics go. Might as well suggest that an average man owning a hydrogen bomb is okay.

In terms of self defense, it's pretty much a fallacy where it's more often that:


> Guns are six times more likely to be used against members of a household than against intruders, according to nationwide telephonic surveys. (Nonlethal weapons such as baseball bats are 12 times more likely to be used against intruders than guns.) And guns are 10 times more likely to be used by criminals than against them. Moreover, the use of firearms for self defense is almost certainly over-reported. More than 1 million Americans each year claim to have shot criminals. If this were true, the nation's emergency rooms would be filled with nothing but foiled criminals, because over 90 percent of criminals who are shot end up in the hospital.






> If someone had a gun, then casualties probably would've been less. There is not a person on here, except maybe you, that thinks more gun control would've prevented this from happening.


Because that worked out so well with Colombine:


> Wouldn't you know it: it turns out crazed school shooters have no qualms about shooting at armed guards, who, it also turns out, aren't necessarily effective at stopping gun-crazy madmen. After shooting at the guard, Harris and his partner, Dylan Klebold, stormed the school and were able to kill 13 people. After that, they killed themselves, effectively disproving the notion that "the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to have a good guy with a gun." Columbine had a good guy with a gun, and the bad guys with the guns killed a bunch of kids and then stopped themselves.






Also, I have to ask, are you suggesting we develop into a society where all schools in the country have to guns lying around? A potential civilian arms race? Because this idea of maximum guns is just asking to increase gun violence rather than lower it.

It's something that neither the Israelis nor the Australia nor the Swiss are willing to accept as laughable ideas go on the matter of guns.

By the way:


> Humans evolve, and yet what evolution apparently gave us is an apparatus, the State, that has killed more people than anything else in human history. Including religion. It has violated more human rights than anything else in human history. Including religion.



More people have died on average well before the existence of modern nation states. The occurrence of male homicide has gone down as the world has progressed.

Give Mr. Pinker a watch:

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ramBFRt1Uzk[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Bryan Paulsen (Dec 21, 2012)

neodragzero said:


> No, it does form a counterargument that hands and feet are not designed to shoot out metal shards meant to create a large load of human bodies. Your argument in general is a bad rhetoric as far as design intent and statistics go. Might as well suggest that an average man owning a hydrogen bomb is okay.



Unless you're comparing an AR-15 to a grenade, your "metal shards meant to create a large load of human bodies" description is intellectually disingenuous.

And previously covered, owning a hydrogen bomb would create collateral damage regardless of proper usage in self-defense. Fallacy of equivocation, fix the logic.



> Because that worked out so well with Colombine:



There is no perfect solution for dealing with sociopaths. In response to 9/11 we gave pilots guns. Part of game theory is maximizing the probability of success and decreasing the chances of failure.



> Also, I have to ask, are you suggesting we develop into a society where all schools in the country have to guns lying around? A potential civilian arms race? Because this idea of maximum guns is just asking to increase gun violence rather than lower it.



There isn't a civilian arms race _now_ even in the states with lax gun laws and open carry. False dilemma.

Schools could regulate who, if anyone, can carry guns if they are private. State schools would have the capacity to follow whatever the State feels is fine for the schools (ie: gun-free zones as they have now). This goes back to property rights. However, whether that's optimal for preventing sociopathic outbursts is another matter entirely.



> It's something that neither the Israelis nor the Australia nor the Swiss are willing to accept as laughable ideas go on the matter of guns.



...And not a single fuck was given this day.


----------



## Bryan Paulsen (Dec 21, 2012)

neodragzero said:


> By the way:
> 
> 
> More people have died on average well before the existence of modern nation states. The occurrence of male homicide has gone down as the world has progressed.



Feel free to compare the difference between lives lost in wars between Nation-States, wars of Nation-State versus aboriginals, and State-sanctioned murder of civilians (ie: Stalin, Mao, Hitler) with lives lost via homicide prior, during, and after the advent of Nation-States. You can also use the number of lives lost in wars between tribal societies, and it still won't get you close to what States have managed when it comes to killing people.

Good luck.


----------



## neodragzero (Dec 21, 2012)

Bryan Paulsen said:


> Unless you're comparing an AR-15 to a grenade,


No, I'm not. It's obvious that the AR-15 is meant to kill a successive amount of people. It being of a lower rate than a grenade is not only meaningless but at the same time there's no real civilian purpose for a grenade.


> And previously covered, owning a hydrogen bomb would create collateral damage regardless of proper usage in self-defense. Fallacy of equivocation, fix the logic.


No, it's a comment on the fact that there quite simply are weapons with no real civilian purpose.  Keep in mind that blowing up a hydrogen bomb in the middle of nowhere in parts that were used for testing wouldn't cause direct collateral damage. There's no real argument for having a semi-automatic rifle. Entertainment isn't good enough.


> There is no perfect solution for dealing with sociopaths. In response to 9/11 we gave pilots guns. Part of game theory is maximizing the probability of success and decreasing the chances of failure.


No. Let me stop you there. You made a statement about having one person armed with a gun supposedly makes a difference in a shooting spree... except that we have a quite famous example where that fail utterly. In a country with a lot of public schools facing a lack of funding and potential cuts, hiring out a cop for every public school is economically plausible. Especially when the NRA:


> In the 1994 crime bill that included the original assault weapons ban, Bill Clinton included a new program called "Community Oriented Policing Services" that meant to add 100,000 new police officers to our streets (which LaPierre is essentially now proposing by putting cops in every school.) The NRA opposed that bill in 1994 and later mocked the COPS program for failing to meet its promise. Now he's complaining about the loss of "Secure Our Schools" grants. They were administered by COPS.




EDIT: I will add that incidents where a shooter has been stopped has usually been done by people who are currently in or retired from a military or police position rather than the idea of a principal being a gun hero.


> There isn't a civilian arms race _now_ even in the states with lax gun laws and open carry. False dilemma.


Pay attention. I didn't say that was the case now. I'm referring to the fact that suggesting an idea of maximum guns for society is still asking for an increase in gun violence where statistically it's still more likely guns will be used by criminals and by individuals against those within their own households. 


> Schools could regulate who, if anyone, can carry guns if they are private. State schools would have the capacity to follow whatever the State feels is fine for the schools (ie: gun-free zones as they have now). This goes back to property rights. However, whether that's optimal for preventing sociopathic outbursts is another matter entirely.


There's a little thing called funds. Capacity is limited by said amount of funds. Especially when the NRA got in the way of 1994 legislation when things were more economically stable.


> ...And not a single fuck was given this day.



Translation: No real response so instead whiny ignorance. Israel and Australia are countries with a gun culture but easily figured out that more guns isn't the answer to dealing with their gun homicide and suicide rates. Ditto on Switzerland.


Bryan Paulsen said:


> Feel free to compare statistics between lives lost in wars between Nation-States, wars of Nation-State versus aboriginals, and State-sanctioned murder of civilians (ie: Stalin, Mao, Hitler) and lives lost via homicide prior to the advent of Nation-States. You can also use statistics of lives lost in wars between tribal societies, and it still won't get you close.
> 
> Good luck.



Let me guess, you didn't bother watching the video. Because it goes well and beyond to explain how rates difference as far as back hunter gatherer times to the 20th century. Bother to pay attention.
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ramBFRt1Uzk[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Bryan Paulsen (Dec 21, 2012)

neodragzero said:


> No, I'm not. It's obvious that the AR-15 is meant to kill a successive amount of people. It being of a lower rate than a grenade is not only meaningless but at the same time there's no real civilian purpose for a grenade.



Any gun that fires more than one round before reloading is "meant to kill a successive amount of people". It isn't a serious argument against the AR-15 compared to, for example, a Colt Magnum.

An assault rifle can be used in moral self-defense, and does not necessitate collateral damage.

Grenades do not have a moral use in self-defense due to implicitly creating collateral damage. The same applies for bombs.



> No, it's a comment on the fact that there quite simply are weapons with no real civilian purpose.  Keep in mind that blowing up a hydrogen bomb in the middle of nowhere in parts that were used for testing wouldn't cause direct collateral damage. There's no real argument for having a semi-automatic rifle. Entertainment isn't good enough.



Define a weapon with a "real civilian purpose". I'm going to have fun watching your logic unravel on this one.

If someone attacks you, and you have a hydrogen bomb on hand, you are going down with it, and so is everyone in your neighborhood. It is a complete failure to talk about detonating it in some remote place, because then it has nothing to do with self-defense.



> No. Let me stop you there. You made a statement about having one person armed with a gun supposedly makes a difference in a shooting spree... except that we have a quite famous example where that fail utterly. In a country with a lot of public schools facing a lack of funding and potential cuts, hiring out a cop for every public school is economically plausible. Especially when the NRA:





It doesn't always fail, this is game theory at work. It will succeed, it will fail, and that is because there is no perfect solution for handling a sociopath. Ever. Regardless of his weapon of choice, even if it's an airplane.



> Pay attention. I didn't say that was the case now. I'm referring to the fact that suggesting an idea of maximum guns for society is still asking for an increase in gun violence where statistically it's still more likely guns will be used by criminals and by individuals against those within their households.



It wouldn't necessarily be the case with an even further increase in guns, because a "civilian arms race" is a ridiculous idea. The conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. 



> There's a little thing called funds. Capacity is limited by said amount of funds. Especially when the NRA got in the way of 1994 legislation when things were more economically stable.



I'm well aware of the funds, it's why the State has already excused itself from the responsibility of individual self-defense via the Supreme Court and Appellate Courts.



> Translation: No real response so instead whiny ignorance.



There is "no real response" to individuals laughing, therefore I repeat: and not a single fuck was given this day.



> Let me guess, you didn't bother watching the video. Because it goes well and beyond to explain how rates difference as far as back hunter gatherer times to the 20th century. Bother to pay attention.
> [YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ramBFRt1Uzk[/YOUTUBE]



The rates of homicide do not have anything to do with the rates States have butchered humans at, and they do not even compare in terms of scale.

If you put together all of the homicides in _history_ you will still not touch the scale of death States have achieved in warfare against other States, Natives, and its own populations.

The greatest agent of homicide is the State, but it is never counted in homicide statistics _because the State isn't a single person, and its actions considered inherently lawful_.


----------



## neodragzero (Dec 22, 2012)

Bryan Paulsen said:


> Any gun that fires more than one round before reloading is "meant to kill a successive amount of people". It isn't a serious argument against the AR-15 compared to, for example, a Colt Magnum.


And again, I'm afraid it is a serious argument in terms of how many rounds one can fire within a breath of time. Anything that even comes close to killing off a double digit amount of people in a short amount of time is excessive.


> An assault rifle can be used in moral self-defense, and does not necessitate collateral damage.


And again, I will refer back to statistics that make the claim of self defense a fallacy for the practical reality.


> Define a weapon with a "real civilian purpose". I'm going to have fun watching your logic unravel on this one.


I'm thinking in terms of this argument:


> Here's my problem with the focus on 'assault weapons': what people are really talking about are not weapons that are designed to look like military weapons- that's merely cosmetic and it always diverts the conversation. What they are really talking about are *three features* - the fact that these rifles are *semi automatic*, that *they are designed to accept high capacity magazines* and that they are often - not always but often - *chambered for small, high velocity rounds, rounds designed to break up in the body and cause maximum damage*.
> 
> Whether they have flash suppressors or a handle on top or look like an AK47 is absolutely irrelevant. There are other rifles that have some or all of the above features and not all weapons styled after 'assault weapons' do. It is critically important in this argument to be very precise.
> 
> ...





> If someone attacks you, and you have a hydrogen bomb on hand, you are going down with it, and so is everyone in your neighborhood. It is a complete failure to talk about detonating it in some remote place, because then it has nothing to do with self-defense.


My neighborhood is in the middle of land that was used for hydrogen bomb test sites? You really couldn't notice what I'm getting at with the usage of the word entertainment?


> It doesn't always fail, this is game theory at work. It will succeed, it will fail, and that is because there is no perfect solution for handling a sociopath. Ever. Regardless of his weapon of choice, even if it's an airplane.


First, I didn't say anything about it always failing. You made the argument as if it's a given that a civilian with a gun would of simply stopped the shooter. With a statistical higher case of guns being used by crimes rather than stopping criminals, a higher case of people with non-civilian, ongoing or retired, positions who more likely do than a single principal, and also:


> There is no evidence indicating that arming Americans further will help prevent mass shootings or reduce the carnage, says Dr. Stephen Hargarten, a leading expert on emergency medicine and gun violence at the Medical College of Wisconsin. To the contrary, there appears to be a relationship between the proliferation of firearms and a rise in mass shootings: By our count, there have been two per year on average since 1982. Yet 25 of the 62 cases we examined have occurred since 2006. This year alone there have already been seven mass shootings—and a record number of casualties, with more than 140 people injured and killed.
> 
> Armed civilians attempting to intervene are actually more likely to increase the bloodshed, says Hargarten, "given that civilian shooters are less likely to hit their targets than police in these circumstances." A chaotic scene in August at the Empire State Building put this starkly into perspective when New York City police officers confronting a gunman wounded nine innocent bystanders.




, your outlier isn't very useful.


> It wouldn't necessarily be the case with an even further increase in guns. The conclusion doesn't follow from the premise.


I would need not only a correlation but even a causation for that to make any sense in reality.


> I'm well aware of the funds, it's why the State has already excused itself from the responsibility of individual self-defense via the Supreme Court and Appellate Courts.


Because we all know that all States are gonna be just fine without that big old federal government in the way.


> There is "no real response" to individuals laughing, therefore I repeat: and not a single fuck was given this day.


And I repeat, I get it, you're ignorant on the argument.


> The rates of homicide do not have anything to do with the rates States have butchered humans at, and they do not even compare in terms of scale.


And again, from the looks of what has been presented, nation states still pale in comparison to homicide rates of earlier eras.


> If you put together all of the homicides in _history_ you will still not touch the scale of death States have achieved in warfare against other States, Natives, and its own populations.
> 
> The great agent of homicide is the State, but it is never counted in homicide statistics _because the State isn't a single person_.



That would be interesting...if Pinker obviously wasn't counting nation state based deaths in the calculation. He's especially specific about society sanctioned murder. The first bloody comparative graph that he puts up is about death of a male BY WARFARE. It's obvious he's not ignoring 20th century wars. So, yeah, it's obvious you either didn't watch the video or quite simply are being intellectually dishonest.


----------



## warp drive (Dec 22, 2012)

Bryan Paulsen said:


> An assault rifle can be used in moral self-defense, and does not necessitate collateral damage.



What is your definition of an assault rifle? Long guns and fully-automatic firearms?


----------



## Bryan Paulsen (Dec 22, 2012)

neodragzero said:


> And again, I'm afraid it is a serious argument in terms of how many rounds one can fire within a breath of time. Anything that even comes close to killing off a double digit amount of people in a short amount of time is excessive.



No, it isn't. The issue isn't the number of rounds fired, the entire consideration constitutes a *red herring*.



> And again, I will refer back to statistics that make the claim of self defense a fallacy for the practical reality.



Statistics cannot refute circumstances in which a gun is successfully used in self-defense, so any assertion about a "practical reality" is baseless. You are not prepared to make the argument that they always fail, and therefore your logic is unsound.



> My neighborhood is in the middle of land that was used for hydrogen bomb test sites? You really couldn't notice what I'm getting at with the usage of the word entertainment?



You still don't get it. Hydrogen bomb detonation in the middle of nowhere is irrelevant.



> First, I didn't say anything about it always failing. You made the argument as if it's a given that a civilian with a gun would of simply stopped the shooter. With a statistical higher case of guns being used by crimes rather than stopping criminals, a higher case of people with non-civilian, ongoing or retired, positions who more likely do than a single principal, and also:
> 
> , your outlier isn't very useful.



Nope, I never made it a "given" that a civilian could have stopped it. It would have given a _chance_ towards stopping it. There's a difference. People take actions that increase the probability of success and decrease the probability of failure, and those chances never become 100% or 0%. You can have your dream system and there is still a chance of failure. Such is life when dealing with humans.



> I would need not only a correlation but even a causation for that to make any sense in reality.



Bingo. Your assertion about a civilian arms race was baseless.



> Because we all know that all States are gonna be just fine without that big old federal government in the way.



They may or may not be fine in the absence of the federal government, but whatever war comes from Rhode Island and Connecticut going at it isn't going to touch whatever the USA gets involved in. You know, since we like going on foreign adventures so much.

And never mind the fact the State can engage in warfare without Congressional improvement nowadays. The more centralized and distant a power from its constituents, the less responsible it is to them.



> And again, from the looks of what has been presented, nation states still pale in comparison to homicide rates of earlier eras.



Again, homicide rates, by themselves, are indicative of nothing if the State is in the business of killing people in its own right.



> That would be interesting...if Pinker obviously wasn't counting nation state based deaths in the calculation. He's especially specific about society sanctioned murder. The first bloody comparative graph that he puts up is about death of a male BY WARFARE. It's obvious he's not ignoring 20th century wars. So, yeah, it's obvious you either didn't watch the video or quite simply are being intellectually dishonest.



Hint: 20th century isn't the only century with Statist warfare and purges.

Start compiling those numbers. Pinker didn't do it. Percentages are an inaccurate reflection of the sheer scale of death because of the dramatically larger populations of today. His argument was _incredibly_ disingenuous.


----------



## neodragzero (Dec 22, 2012)

Bryan Paulsen said:


> No, it isn't. The issue isn't the number of rounds fired, the entire consideration constitutes a *red herring*.


How exactly is bringing up rate of fire and ammo load in terms of a gun's intended design constitute a red herring? It's utterly apart of the conversation as to how people differentiate the relative destructive power of varying firearms.


> Statistics cannot refute circumstances in which a gun is successfully used in self-defense,


Actually, yes, it does refute when there's more proof of a gun not being used for self defense. Are you suggesting that an unwanted bad result magically makes something that's a positive outlier positive simply acceptable?


> so any assertion about a "practical reality" is baseless. You are not prepared to make the argument that they always fail, and therefore your logic is unsound.


Whoa. So, again, you're suggesting that a greater rate of failure is okay as long as you have a relative outlier of good? Do you really understand what you're suggesting here?


> You still don't get it. Hydrogen bomb detonation in the middle of nowhere is irrelevant.


No, it's quite relevant in terms of my earlier statement about entertainment. The ownership of guns isn't simply within the realm of self defense. There's the issue of people having guns that are obviously well and beyond such a claim that enters the territory of claiming a simple enactment of entertainment as having a hobby goes.


> Nope, I never made it a "given" that a civilian could have stopped it.


Actually, you did:


Bryan Paulsen said:


> If someone had a gun, then casualties probably would've been less.



You suggested that causalities probably would've been less. The shown rate of that actually happening isn't enough that make that highly probable. When you say probably, without any suggestion otherwise, it's obvious what you're pushing towards as likely.


> Bingo. Your assertion about a civilian arms race was baseless.


No, it's obviously not baseless on the matter of what maximum gun means. The fact you talked about the matter of now makes it all the more obvious you don't understand the concept. 


> They may or may not be fine in the absence of the federal government, but whatever war comes from Rhode Island and Connecticut going at it isn't going to touch whatever the USA gets involved in. You know, since we like going on foreign adventures so much.


First of all, do you really think that the number one killer of Americans is foreign wars or what exactly? We have multiple states that without federal funding would basically go bankrupt. We have states that would ignore obvious matters of biological sciences and historical record. If you really think that international wars have killed more American women than improper lack of sex healthcare, you're quite disconnected from reality with this odd idea that the federal government is only a negative rather than a middle ground.


> Again, homicide rates, by themselves, are indicative of nothing if the State is in the business of killing people in its own right.


Again, the comparison is based on deaths from warfare. Warfare refers to organized conflicts between groups lead by an entity. Nation states aren't being ignored in the metric.


> Warfare is not the only cause of State-sanctioned death. Have you bothered to add all the Holocaust, Stalin and Mao's Purges, Pol Pot, and every other Statist murderer in history?


Pinker brought up all this for the 20th century in terms of how this compares to past eras. So, yes, it's in there. Just admit you either haven't bothered with the researched material of the video or quite simply are being dishonest.

EDIT:


> Hint: 20th century isn't the only century with Statist warfare and purges.


It's a good thing he didn't suggest otherwise. Keep in mind that you on the other hand kept referring to the 20th century events as far as modern nation state concept goes. He's not limiting his comparisons simply to the 20th century. This is obvious from the video.


> Start compiling those numbers. Pinker didn't do it. *Percentages are an inaccurate reflection of the sheer scale of death because of the dramatically larger populations of today.* His argument was _incredibly_ disingenuous.






I guess I should shift over to longer, higher quality living standards and development that's better a constant show of results than warfare.:shrug:


----------



## warp drive (Dec 22, 2012)

Bryan Paulsen said:


> No, it isn't. The issue isn't the number of rounds fired, the entire consideration constitutes a *red herring*.
> 
> You still don't get it. Hydrogen bomb detonation in the middle of nowhere is irrelevant.



There is ?little power? and there is ?great power?. Little power should suffice for protection: a semi-automatic handgun with a max clip of 10 bullets. Great power is immoral for the private citizen: unlimited ammunition, long guns, and fully-automatic firearms.  While little power may be morally justifiable for self-defense, great power is immoral. In the hands of sick people, little power can create minor casualty whereas big power yield massacre accessible. There is a big difference. 

Can you give me one moral, coherent justification as to why you should legally own a long gun, fully-automatic firearms, or unlimited ammunition? (By the way, what is it with the inflated language?  )


----------



## SubtleObscurantist (Dec 22, 2012)

Pinker's argument has been refuted before and it is completely disingenuous, incidentally. Every last one of his examples that are supposed to prove that warfare and or murder was vastly more common amongst our hunter-gatherer ancestors isn't even from that time period. They are all modern societies and none of them are to my purely hunter-gatherer and some aren't hunter-gatherer at all. And a fair few were societies that were put under significant stress by intereactions with modern cultures. Heck, there is one instance where a researcher deliberately set several tribes against each other to research their rate of violence.

Heck, it doesn't even make sense that hunter-gatherers could have significantly contributed to our murder/warfare rates. Their populations were infinitesimally smaller than modern populations and even sum totals weren't comparable. And they were sufficiently spread out and without concrete property to fight wars over. If they were as violent as Pinker suggests, their communities would have been nearly wiped out every generation and the human race likely would have gone extinct.


----------



## Bryan Paulsen (Dec 22, 2012)

neodragzero said:


> How exactly is bringing up rate of fire and ammo load in terms of a gun's intended design constitute a red herring? It's utterly apart of the conversation as to how people differentiate the relative destructive power of varying firearms.



The "relative destructive power" isn't the question as to the legitimacy of these weapons in self-defense.

The question is if these weapons, even in the case of proper usage, cause collateral damage and therefore violate the self-ownership of other individuals.

With assault rifles the answer is an emphatic no. Your argument has no logical bearing on the legitimacy of these weapons in self-defense.



> Actually, yes, it does refute when there's more proof of a gun not being used for self defense. Are you suggesting that an unwanted bad result magically makes something that's a positive outlier positive simply acceptable?



That guns can be used offensively does not give one the right to arbitrarily deny another individual to use them for self-defense. That represents coercion, an unethical, immoral behavior rightly condemned.



> Whoa. So, again, you're suggesting that a greater rate of failure is okay as long as you have a relative outlier of good? Do you really understand what you're suggesting here?



That's not the suggestion. The point is that they are successfully used in self-defense frequently enough that it isn't a statistically negligible number, and therefore pointing to failure as a valid means of denying the successes is logically unsound.



> No, it's quite relevant in terms of my earlier statement about entertainment. The ownership of guns isn't simply within the realm of self defense. There's the issue of people having guns that are obviously well and beyond such a claim that enters the territory of claiming a simple enactment of entertainment as having a hobby goes.



I already covered this in an argument with another individual:

Weapons that cause collateral damage even when used correctly do not qualify as a moral means of self-defense, and are therefore illegitimate. No bombs, no grenades, no nuclear weapons.

Weapons that do not cause collateral damage when used correctly qualify as a moral means of self-defense against aggressors.



> Actually, you did:
> 
> You suggested that causalities probably would've been less. The shown rate of that actually happening isn't enough that make that highly probable. When you say probably, without any suggestion otherwise, it's obvious what you're pushing towards as likely.



The word "probably" does not indicate a "given" in any vernacular. Perhaps "possible" was better suited. 



> No, it's obviously not baseless on the matter of what maximum gun means. The fact you talked about the matter of now makes it all the more obvious you don't understand the concept.



It's entirely baseless, or you are entirely unaware of what an arms race is. If you were aware of what one was, then you would certainly understand that civilians wouldn't be engaging in one just by virtue of increasing the number of guns. 

If your argument held any weight there would already be an arms race *now* in states with lax gun laws and open carry. There isn't.



> First of all, do you really think that the number one killer of Americans is foreign wars or what exactly? We have multiple states that without federal funding would basically go bankrupt. We have states that would ignore obvious matters of biological sciences and historical record. If you really think that international wars have killed more American women than improper lack of sex healthcare, you're quite disconnected from reality with this odd idea that the federal government is only a negative rather than a middle ground.



Where did the women red herring come from? Yeesh.

The only reason we aren't losing more Americans _now_ in our foreign policing actions is thanks to technology, particularly drones. We owe technology an untold amount of thanks for lowering the amount of deaths compared to previous decades.

The federal government is not a middle ground. It is a bloated, wasteful, corrupt, unresponsive, and unethical entity with special privileges.



> Again, the comparison is based on deaths from warfare. Warfare refers to organized conflicts between groups lead by an entity. Nation states aren't being ignored in the metric.



It was a percentage-based comparison, and therefore intellectually disingenuous given the scale of deaths. The human population is multiple orders of magnitude bigger than previous centuries.



> Pinker brought up all this for the 20th century in terms of how this compares to past eras. So, yes, it's in there. Just admit you either haven't bothered with the researched material of the video or quite simply are being dishonest.



I watched it, and the percentage-based argument was incredibly disingenuous. Had he used raw numbers it would have been a laughable demonstration.



SasukeTheAlmighty said:


> There is “little power” and there is “great power”. Little power should suffice for protection: a semi-automatic handgun with a max clip of 10 bullets. Great power is immoral for the private citizen: unlimited ammunition, long guns, and fully-automatic firearms.  While little power may be morally justifiable for self-defense, great power is immoral. In the hands of sick people, little power can create minor casualty whereas big power yield massacre accessible. There is a big difference.



Great power is only immoral if it causes collateral damage even with proper usage. Any other standard falls short of rigorous logic.



> Can you give me one moral, coherent justification as to why you should legally own a long gun, fully-automatic firearms, or unlimited ammunition? (By the way, what is it with the inflated language?  )



Self-defense.

What I can't give you is a moral reason to own a nuclear weapon. Moral self-defense cannot necessitate the subversion of the self-ownership of other individuals.


----------



## warp drive (Dec 22, 2012)

Bryan Paulsen said:


> Great power is only immoral if it causes collateral damage even with proper usage. Any other standard falls short of rigorous logic.



What the?? I don?t even know what to make of that. Care to elaborate? 



Bryan Paulsen said:


> Self-defense.
> 
> What I can't give you is a moral reason to own a nuclear weapon, or even a 50 caliber machine gun. *Moral self-defense cannot necessitate the subversion of the self-ownership of other individuals.*


Dude, can you speak clear please? First, protection or self-defense is always moral, so I do not understand why would anyone modify the word ?protection or self-defense? excessively with the adjective ?moral.? Another thing, what the hell is ?self-ownership?? I do not understand what you are saying at all.


----------



## neodragzero (Dec 22, 2012)

Bryan Paulsen said:


> The "relative destructive power" isn't the question as to the legitimacy of these weapons in self-defense.


No, it is the question. A question that's the basis of gun rights vs gun safety where the design elements I brought up are clearly excessive beyond simply self defense. The matter of collateral damage is the red herring where the point is the direct usage of fire arms rather than the idea of unintended targets by the shooter.


> That guns can be used offensively does not give one the right to deny another individual to use them for self-defense. That represents coercion, an unethical, immoral behavior rightly condemned.


Except that a higher rate of bad results makes the claim of self defense a fallacy. Your argument falls apart as it suggests that somehow safety can't be factored just because safety standards can be considered coercion.


> That's not the suggestion. The point is that they are successfully used in self-defense frequently enough that it isn't a statistically negligible number,


A 6 to 10 fold difference in the usage of an item would say otherwise about the level of success. Especially when you seem to be ignoring the added matter of design features that clearly go well and beyond what is needed for self defense unless you have the drug cartels coming after you.


> The word "probably" does not indicate a "given" in any vernacular. Perhaps "possible" was better suited.



Probably refers to probability. The probability of something occurring. When someone usually says probably, it's obviously being used in the optimistic assumption of a given rather than just a possibility. All the more so with statistics that make a possibility unlikely to warrant arguing for it.


> It's entirely baseless, or you are entirely unaware of what an arms race is. If you were aware of what one was, then you would certainly understand that civilians wouldn't be engaging in one just by virtue of increasing the number of guns.


I'm not talking about increasing supply but actually forcefully doing it at and beyond what the NRA vice president suggested in terms of the idea that guns become more common place as if social interaction requires as many people to be armed and carrying out in public. The fact that a lot of these massacres are with arms that include body armor and the specific design details of semi-automatic or better weapons, and the fact that you can have criminal attempts that surpass more than one suspect, that requires an increase in personnel to react to such an increase, we just push the envelop there in terms of how many people as possible are packing heat. Keep in mind that gun violence has increased in areas with not only an increase in guns but also the matter of socioeconomic issues that may encourage crime. Again, maximum guns concept in terms of a push well beyond that limited scope of state based gun rights liberalization.


> Where did the women red herring come from? Yeesh.


It's not a red herring in response to your "horrible nation state" commentary. Talking about international wars that have nothing to do with a domestic issue in terms of guns is quite problematic. If you're willing to suggest some goofy idea of two random states going to war for some reason, I can easily enough bring up the fact that, as far as effects on the U.S. population go, there have been more cases, especially in terms of women's health, where states have been more detrimental to women's health than the federal government. Seriously, what social and economic position are you professing here exactly? If I sense any libertarian leanings to the point of bad Ron Paul domestic policy ideas, I'm just gonna give up on this discussion. 


> The federal government is not a middle ground. It is a bloated, wasteful, corrupt, unresponsive, and unethical entity with special privileges.


And here we have you using and benefiting from said government right now.


----------



## Bryan Paulsen (Dec 22, 2012)

SasukeTheAlmighty said:


> What the?? I don?t even know what to make of that. Care to elaborate?



Power is irrelevant. Effects are all that matter.



> Dude, can you speak clear please? First, protection or self-defense is always moral, so I do not understand why would anyone modify the word ?protection or self-defense? excessively with the adjective ?moral.? Another thing, what the hell is ?self-ownership?? I do not understand what you are saying at all.



#1) Self-defense is not always moral.
#2) Self-defense that subverts the self-ownership (interrupts the personal autonomy) of an innocent individual is immoral.

Google "right of self-ownership". It's a philosophical principle most people will not reject due to the inherent self-interest represented.


----------



## LouDAgreat (Dec 22, 2012)

Destroyer of Kittens said:
			
		

> The fact you view assualt weapons as unnecessary wont jive with the morality and legality of banning it. its easy to say something is unnecessary when you dont own or partake in a activity and much more difficult to support banning a activity you yourself do. the reason I bring up alchohol is because It is much much more popular and could also be argued as unecessary much as assault rifles and with a higher death count to boot.



Being it was originially intended as a military weapon, it is inherently unnecessary for civilian use as defense. Actually, its beyond that unnessary...it's overkill. The military origin of assault weapons alone should define civilian use of assault weapons for defense as unnecessary, immoral and illegal. The fact there are less destructive alternatives for defense should eliminate the the option for assault weapons as defense. There's not much alternative to a buzz from alchohol, except maybe drugs. 



			
				Destroyer of Kittens said:
			
		

> You meantion responsible use of alchohol and responsible use of assault rifles. A responsible use of a assault rifle isnt going on a killing spree, its taking it out to a deserted field and firing it down-range at whatever target you choose and putting it up in your safe after you are done with it and not touching it again for 6 months "or mabey thats just me".



You want to shoot stuff, go to a firing range where you keep your guns. Don't bring it home where crazies can steel them. 
Unfortunately, the prevalence and obsession for big guns in this country will ensure Newtown happens again. Gun advocates answer to Newtown: Have more guns...IN OUR SCHOOLS. That is not responsible use of guns in the slightest. 



			
				Destroyer of Kittens said:
			
		

> That said. It should be reminded. 99.99 percent of people who consume alcholol are actually responsible enough to not cause fatalities. the same statistic is true for assault rifles.



How many alcohol accidents a year? You sure it's 99.99 percent? Again, drunkeness is a slow build up to the state. Massacres happen on a simple pull of the trigger. 



			
				Destroyer of Kittens said:
			
		

> another point. I generally agree that a assault rifle is probably a horrible choice for defence, it cant be carried with you and has a high chance of piercing your target and hitting someone you dont intend. I think the best home defence weapon would be a Semi-Auto 12 gauge shotgun of some sort.



Well if you think assault weapons are horrible for defense, shouldn't we ban them? Handguns are the maximum for me...or single shot rifles with a maximum 6 round cartridge.


----------



## drache (Dec 22, 2012)

Byran,

let me guess you're a follower of Ayn Rand?


----------



## Megaharrison (Dec 22, 2012)

They can take our guns, but they can never take our....


----------



## Mael (Dec 22, 2012)

drache said:


> Byran,
> 
> let me guess you're a follower of Ayn Rand?



No he's just selfish and almost LaRouche levels with his paranoia of "the State."

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIpLd0WQKCY&feature=endscreen&NR=1[/YOUTUBE]

Pretty accurate.


----------



## Bryan Paulsen (Dec 22, 2012)

neodragzero said:


> No, it is the question. A question that's the basis of gun rights vs gun safety where the design elements I brought up are clearly excessive beyond simply self defense. The matter of collateral damage is the red herring where the point is the direct usage of fire arms rather than the idea of unintended targets by the shooter.



Collateral damage is the only means by which you can consider self-defensive gun usage improper. If there is no existent collateral damage, then variations in guns are entirely irrelevant.



> Except that a higher rate of bad results makes the claim of self defense a fallacy. Your argument falls apart as it suggests that somehow safety can't be factored just because safety standards can be considered coercion.



Statistics do not make the claim it always fails, or that it even fails enough that they aren't used effectively in self-defense in situations. There is no perfect self-defense, and therefore I don't need to make the argument that it always succeeds.



> A 6 to 10 fold difference in the usage of an item would say otherwise about the level of success. Especially when you seem to be ignoring the added matter of design features that clearly go well and beyond what is needed for self defense unless you have the drug cartels coming after you.



Introducing the idea of "need" into self-defense is superfluous and arbitrary. It does not form the cornerstone of any logical criticism of the ownership of guns for self-defense due to the inherent sujectivism.



> Probably refers to probability. The probability of something occurring. When someone usually says probably, it's obviously being used in the optimistic assumption of a given rather than just a possibility. All the more so with statistics that make a possibility unlikely to warrant arguing for it.



Use the word "possibly" if you care to.



> I'm not talking about increasing supply but actually forcefully doing it at and beyond what the NRA vice president suggested in terms of the idea that guns become more common place as if social interaction requires as many people to be armed and carrying out in public. The fact that a lot of these massacres are with arms that include body armor and the specific design details of semi-automatic or better weapons, and the fact that you can have criminal attempts that surpass more than one suspect, that requires an increase in personnel to react to such an increase, we just push the envelop there in terms of how many people as possible are packing heat. Keep in mind that gun violence has increased in areas with not only an increase in guns but also the matter of socioeconomic issues that may encourage crime. Again, maximum guns concept in terms of a push well beyond that limited scope of state based gun rights liberalization.



Aggregate violence increases due to socioeconomic conditions, for starters.

Increased gun ownership would not create a "civilian arms race" as you contended. The fact is that in states with lax gun laws and open carry a lot of people still elect to go without for various reasons, and many of those unarmed individuals support gun rights. A lot of people owning guns does not create a sudden fear in society that everybody needs to own them, because people understand the vast majority of individuals act responsibly.



> It's not a red herring in response to your "horrible nation state" commentary. Talking about international wars that have nothing to do with a domestic issue in terms of guns is quite problematic. If you're willing to suggest some goofy idea of two random states going to war for some reason, I can easily enough bring up the fact that, as far as effects on the U.S. population go, there have been more cases, especially in terms of women's health, where states have been more detrimental to women's health than the federal government. Seriously, what social and economic position are you professing here exactly? If I sense any libertarian leanings to the point of bad Ron Paul domestic policy ideas, I'm just gonna give up on this discussion.



My "social" position is that the State is archaic and needs to go the way of the Roman State, preferably without the collapse into anomie that Rome suffered.

Once the chains have been removed from the people I don't care _what_ kind of understanding of property rights they want to develop (whether they turn capitalist/communist or some bastardized version of the two is dependent on societal understanding of property rights).



> And here we have you using and benefiting from said government right now.



The benefits are not worth the costs, nor is there an actual choice. Welcome to coercion - you will give me what I tell you to give me, and you will get what I think you deserve. Be thankful that I don't demand more and give you less, etc.



drache said:


> Byran,
> 
> let me guess you're a followr of Ayn Rand?



No. Not just no, but hell no. If you want to beat the hell out of that strawman, then be my guest. You won't catch me protesting.


----------



## drache (Dec 22, 2012)

was just a question considering your rather extreme and insteresting take on libertarianism


----------



## Stygian (Dec 22, 2012)

Look at that MASSIVE number of murders with rifles as compared to other weapons- oh, wait...


----------



## neodragzero (Dec 23, 2012)

Bryan Paulsen said:


> Collateral damage is the only means by which you can consider self-defensive gun usage improper


No.

The issue is the matter of making available weapons with features in design that go well beyond the necessity of self defense. 


> Statistics do not make the claim it always fails, or that it even fails enough that they aren't used effectively in self-defense in situations. There is no perfect self-defense, and therefore I don't need to make the argument that it always succeeds.


Keep up. A higher rate of failure than pass makes it clear that a certain argument in policy has no real bearing in suggesting that the pass can be argued to be acceptable. So, when someone claims the point of self defense but said self defense is multiple folds outnumbered by bad usage, it's clear that said claim is a fallacy.


> Introducing the idea of "need" into self-defense is superfluous and arbitrary. It does not form the cornerstone of any logical criticism of the ownership of guns for self-defense due to the inherent sujectivism.


Because we all know that having a gun that holds a ridiculous amount of clips and bullets designed to cause maximum damage to a human being is just objectively necessary to defend yourself from a mugger.


> Use the word "possibly" if you care to.


A word you didn't use. A word that's not synonymous with probably. Especially when possibility is meaningless if said possibility is relatively too small to support an argument that amounts to a fallacy.


> Increased gun ownership would not create a "civilian arms race" as you contended. The fact is that in states


I'll stop you right there. Again, you're attempting to speak of current, state limitation liberalization of gun rights that's well and beyond below that of the maximum gun concept while ignoring the ongoing socioeconomic factors that lead to incidents. The fact that on a national scale there has been an increase in gun massacre violence while multiple gun culture nations have went the opposite direction on gun ownership that has actually kept their gun violence relatively low makes it all the more obvious that having an unprecedented amount of gun ownership isn't really viable.


> My "social" position is that the State is archaic and needs to go the way of the Roman State, preferably without the collapse into anomie that Rome suffered.
> 
> Once the chains have been removed from the people I don't care _what_ kind of understanding of property rights they want to develop (whether they turn capitalist/communist or some bastardized version of the two is dependent on societal understanding of property rights).


In other words, an ideology more separate from reality than bad Ran Paul domestic policy.  I don't have time for childish, lazy dystopia anarchist.


> *The benefits are not worth the costs, nor is there an actual choice.* Welcome to coercion - you will give me what I tell you to give me, and you will get what I think you deserve. Be thankful that I don't demand more and give you less, etc.


Don't use the internet. Don't use radio. Don't use public roads. Don't use any of the stuff that has resulted from past federal funding for research. No one is coercing you to use any of this. You can easily enough live off in the mountains if you really want to stop sucking at the teat of what the federal government has done. I just find it funny how a greater positive is automatically assumed for states as if said states have always been more progressive, free of corruption, and such than the federal government.

On the matter of gun control, from the looks of numerous nations with a gun culture in terms of how they dealt with the problem, the benefit clearly outweighs the cost. You've still not offered any rebuttal to the design elements I brought up in terms of what isn't necessary for civilian life. I'm not talking about banning guns in general. Just the matter of how the features I mentioned aren't reasonable for blatantly obvious reasons.


----------



## GaaraoftheDesert1 (Dec 23, 2012)

Its true that having guns is some sort of freedom, but there are so many idiotic people out there that it would be for the best to ban em all.


----------



## warp drive (Dec 23, 2012)

Bryan Paulsen said:


> Power is irrelevant. Effects are all that matter.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Power leads to effect, so it is relevant Einstein. 

1) Self-defense is always moral and any unnecessary aggression does not constitute self-defense.
2) No. You live in a representative government (as oppose to anarchy). You can always get out of the US maybe a village in Africa will do for you. 
And it's not immoral by the way. Great power should not be legally accessible to the public.


----------



## Dralavant (Dec 24, 2012)

I may be completely alone on this side of the issue, but they should not ban semi-automatics rifles. I'm a strong supporter of the 2nd amendment of the constitution. If this passes both the House and Senate, I hope my governor vetoes it. We have good enough gun regulations here in my state already. I'm not a Democrat or Republican, just a law-abiding citizen who owns guns for protection.


----------



## neodragzero (Dec 24, 2012)

Dralavant said:


> I may be completely alone on this side of the issue, but they should not ban semi-automatics rifles. I'm a strong supporter of the 2nd amendment of the constitution. If this passes both the House and Senate, I hope my governor vetoes it. We have good enough gun regulations here in my state already. I'm not a Democrat or Republican, just a law-abiding citizen who owns guns for protection.



I have to ask, what's the limit on the second amendment? Are you suggesting that: 





> three features - the fact that these rifles are semi automatic, that they are designed to accept high capacity magazines and that they are often - not always but often - chambered for small, high velocity rounds, rounds designed to break up in the body and cause maximum damage.



are really necessary for civilian usage? How about M-16s? Shoulder mounted missile launchers? Because the last time I checked the second amendment talks about an ORGANIZED MILITIA rather than a blunt suggestion that pushes into suggesting that there's a reasonable purpose for a single mother to have an AR-15 in the middle of Connecticut.


----------



## Shoddragon (Dec 24, 2012)

I can agree with limiting or banning flat out assault weapons for civilians at the very least. I don't see what someone is gonna need something capable of automatic fire for. even then, I wouldn't trust some average civilian with an assault weapon, any kind of fuckup and you'll be spraying bullets everywhere which can do more harm than good, I'd leave it to professionals.


----------



## neodragzero (Dec 24, 2012)

Pretty much. Especially when people need to keep in mind how our current society police force compares to what was around during the time of the Founding Fathers. However I may feel about the police, I've got to admit that there's a particular reason why Swat got what they are packing rather than some random family in Perryville, Virginia.


----------



## Shoddragon (Dec 24, 2012)

neodragzero said:


> Pretty much. Especially when people need to keep in mind how our current society police force compares to what was around during the time of the Founding Fathers. However I may feel about the police, I've got to admit that there's a particular reason why Swat got what they are packing rather than some random family in Perryville, Virginia.



you mean the near non-existing garbage police force that existed in the states back in the day? lol.

I mean modern policing and the whole criminal justice system in general has only really become very organized over the past hundred or so years.

people like Hugo Munsterburg helped shaped the psychology aspect of criminal justice and policing as an example.

I mean I understand the real reason for the second amendment and that was because policing was ass back in the day. I do think the second amendment should still be active but to a limited extent.

I mean, I'd feel a whole lot safer on a train ride if I knew all of the responsible adults were packing some standard handguns or something ( well I guess not here in NYC specifically since a lot of the time there are uniformed cops riding on the trains or undercover cops but bear with me for the example) but I would feel a bit disturbed if I knew some people on the train were packing p90s or uzis or other kind of weapons capable of automatic fire.


----------



## Roman (Dec 24, 2012)

Shoddragon said:


> I can agree with limiting or banning flat out assault weapons for civilians at the very least. I don't see what someone is gonna need something capable of automatic fire for. even then, I wouldn't trust some average civilian with an assault weapon, any kind of fuckup and you'll be spraying bullets everywhere which can do more harm than good, I'd leave it to professionals.



Indeed. I never could understand why civilians should be allowed to have any kind of projectile weapon they want. Even for those who like to quote the constitution on this, citizens are allowed to carry firearms. There's no specification as to what kind, and the history that followed this supposedly infallible text's creation showed that civilians carrying any kinds of weapons does more harm than good. Remember, 67.5% of murders in the US are attributed to guns. Other countries where firearms are outlawed see not only a much lesser gun-related murder count, but a much lesser overall murder count (in percentage terms). Who will civilians need to protect themselves from that they're made to think they need the same kind of weapons normally issued to front-line soldiers and the likes? It makes no sense to me.


----------



## neodragzero (Dec 24, 2012)

Shoddragon said:


> you mean the near non-existing garbage police force that existed in the states back in the day? lol.


Yeah, that police force. 1800s Five Points terrible..



> I mean modern policing and the whole criminal justice system in general has only really become very organized over the past hundred or so years.
> 
> people like Hugo Munsterburg helped shaped the psychology aspect of criminal justice and policing as an example.
> 
> ...



True. True.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Dec 24, 2012)

As cenk noted, if you don't want to put a limit on the constitution, why are there no objections to RPG's being bought en masse, grenades and other military grade weaponry?  There's no difference whatsoever. Columbine included bombs and Mcveigh used bombs to even carry out things on the scale to be considered domestic terrorism, but apparently it still never enters the public consciousness.


----------



## Roman (Dec 25, 2012)

neodragzero said:


> True. True.



Personally, I'd feel a lot safer is no one was carrying a gun while I was on a train rather than everyone.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Dec 25, 2012)

SasukeTheAlmighty said:


> Power leads to effect, so it is relevant Einstein.
> 
> 1) Self-defense is always moral and any unnecessary aggression does not constitute self-defense.
> 2) No. You live in a representative government (as oppose to anarchy). You can always get out of the US maybe a village in Africa will do for you.
> *And it's not immoral by the way. Great power should not be legally accessible to the public.*



Statements like this always make me cringe. There's some fucking lunatics around this place.


----------



## Dattebayo-chan (Dec 25, 2012)

I support this. Shootings in the States is a problem and something needs to be done. I think this a step in the right direction.


----------



## warp drive (Dec 25, 2012)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Statements like this always make me cringe. There's some fucking lunatics around this place.



What?s the matter Mr. Tube?  Did not like the double negative?


----------



## Roman (Dec 26, 2012)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Statements like this always make me cringe. There's some fucking lunatics around this place.



Maybe Sasuke should explain a little better. If by "great power" he means guns, a tool that empowers people with control over others' lives, then I agree that such power shouldn't be freely distributed to people. Then again, I'm generally against taking other people's lives. There are always other solutions, other choices that can be made without having to kill.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Dec 26, 2012)

Freedan said:


> Maybe Sasuke should explain a little better. If by "great power" he means guns, a tool that empowers people with control over others' lives, then I agree that such power shouldn't be freely distributed to people. Then again, I'm generally against taking other people's lives. There are always other solutions, other choices that can be made without having to kill.


Then I would say you're an idiot, sometimes you have to kill people and there's no way around it. Only a fool thinks otherwise.


----------



## Seph (Dec 26, 2012)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Then I would say you're an idiot, sometimes you have to kill people and there's no way around it. Only a fool thinks otherwise.



He said "generally."


----------



## Roman (Dec 26, 2012)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Then I would say you're an idiot, sometimes you have to kill people and there's no way around it. Only a fool thinks otherwise.



I have to ask myself at what point did it become a perceived necessity to kill people to make the world a better place. Acts of violence are more like to create animosity in an individual, a group of people or a society at large, not peace. Death is not something to be celebrated.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Dec 26, 2012)

Violence begets Violence ect


----------



## warp drive (Dec 27, 2012)

Freedan said:


> Maybe Sasuke should explain a little better. If by "great power" he means guns, a tool that empowers people with control over others' lives, then I agree that such power shouldn't be freely distributed to people. Then again, I'm generally against taking other people's lives. There are always other solutions, other choices that can be made without having to kill.


It was explicitly stated in the previous page:


SasukeTheAlmighty said:


> There is “little power” and there is “great power”. Little power should suffice for protection: a semi-automatic handgun with a max clip of 10 bullets. *Great power* is immoral for the private citizen: *unlimited ammunition, long guns, and fully-automatic firearms.  *While little power may be morally justifiable for self-defense, great power is immoral. In the hands of sick people, little power can create minor casualty whereas big power yield massacre accessible. There is a big difference.







Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Then I would say you're an idiot, sometimes you have to kill people and there's no way around it. Only a fool thinks otherwise.



I am going to ask you one last time Mr. Tube: What’s your quarrel? Since you address me as a “fucking lunatic,” I expect an explanation.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Dec 27, 2012)

Its common sense to ban excessive firepower. How people didn't understand what you meant is beyond me. Our entire conversation is hinging around military grade hardware that these apologists seem content to excuse it.


----------



## LouDAgreat (Jan 17, 2013)

It may be necroing, but I've finally gotten the time to respond to this: 



			
				Bryan Paulson said:
			
		

> The right to one secure one's self-defense stems from the right of self-ownership.



The right to secure one's self does not entitle one to own heavy assault weapons. Handguns will have to suffice.



> All weapons can potentially be used aggressively. That includes human fists and feet. This doesn't form a counterargument.



Yes, because we've seen great killing sprees within minutes from the use of fists. . Stop going to great lengths to defend your insane fetish for assault weapons. 



> If someone had a gun, then casualties probably would've been less. There is not a person on here, except maybe you, that thinks more gun control would've prevented this from happening.



Nah, there's plenty of people. You just don't imagine them away. But whats sad is, you think turning schools and public places into the wild west will somehow reduce crime. Use a fucking taser and work to eliminate all guns in the country, then beef up customs to prevent imports of weapons. 



> Sympathy for the victims does not necessitate a need to punish the majority that have done nothing wrong.



Owning assault weapons is inherently wrong, the existence of which led to this crimes. Eliminate them from existence and it would've been much harder for Adam Lanza to kill 20 children with a bat, knife, or his fists. Humans do not have the capability to punch holes through flesh, bone and organs. Assault weapons do.



> Sociopaths turn schools and theatres into war zones. Not guns. That school, and the Aurora, CO theatre were quite peaceful until a sociopath came along.



The gun motivated and empowered the sociaopath to turn those schools and theatres into war zones. Tell me if there were no guns, how deadly would Aurora and Newtown really have been? 



> When I see someone practicing open carry in the grocery store (it's happened 2 out of the last 3 times I've went) it doesn't become a war zone. Unlike you, people have functioning brains.



Those people you saw and yourself are fucking brain dead for putting this country back 100 years with gun proliferation. You obsess with guns as if their your fuck partners. 



> When you assign special privileges to the State it becomes limitless. Period. You think voting is a limiter, which is, of course, hilarious.



Absolutely not. Democracy and our political efficacy place limits. Voting in numbers brings about change and restores limits that may be lost. Ofcourse its sad you don't think that's possible. You live in a supposedly big bad state with a big bad government, out to take your free expression, enslave you and eat your soul. Yet here you are talking all this shit without repercussions. So much for a state with limitless power. 



> I recognize equal limits for all individuals. You don't, as per your admission of special State rights.



Individuals of the state are still must abide by the laws that everyone else must follow. If they don't, you vote them out. Just because a state doesn't follow it ,doesn't mean it won't forever and ever. The purpose of democracy is to ensure the state does follow the values of the society.



> The "Conservative Court" ruled in line with judicial precedent. It has not overturned Appellate court rulings that are line with the precedent.
> 
> Your notion that it is the State's responsibility is refuted in its entirety by the judicial system.



Once again, the Supreme Court has a history of ruling absolute precedent.See Plessy v Ferguson. That's why future courts review old cases and create new precedent. Courts, like the laws and the society in general change. They are not stuck in stone. Whatever your argument for court jurisprudence in supporting your claims for "self  defence" can be overturned in the future. 



> "Time to update". Are you retarded? Do you know what "judicial precedent" is? For fuck's sake, I'm dealing with a newbie.



Plessy vs Fugosn. That's judicial precedent...do we follow that asshole? 
Precedent does not have to be followed at all. New rulings strike down old precedents and create "updates". Understand? Go to take a law class. 



> You live in a State that tells you that it isn't their duty. It doesn't give a flying fuck what you think, because that's their special privilege you gave it.



An error in philosophy that must be reviewed. 



> And the idea that self-defense should only be permissible by non-lethal means is both stupid and dangerous. If you are defending yourself, and you have to hesitate due to potential punishment if you efficiently defend yourself, then it is a worthless concept that puts to question the moral legitimacy of self-defense.



Ofcourse you're too dense to contemplate the possibility of innovative non-lethal defense. You're mindset, like you're ideas are stuck in the past.



> It is obviously you do not, even for the briefest of moments, consider the implications of what you're saying.



....I can't believe this. Have YOU contemplated the consequences of your gun society? Have you contemplated the consequences every person owning assault weapons in churches, parks, school, hospitals, government buildings, subways, buses, crowded streets and thoroughfares? I mean have you ever stepped outside Arizona? 



> Humans evolve, and yet what evolution apparently gave us is an apparatus, the State, that has killed more people than anything else in human history. Including religion. It has violated more human rights than anything else in human history. Including religion.



No wonder why America is such a great country.No wonder why Europeans worked so hard to overthrow kings and Queens and create social democracies. No wonder why we Americans work so hard to perfect our Union. Unfortunately, shitbags like you try to  implode it with your gun mindset. 



> The State, being divorced from the people it supposedly represents (even Marx realized this), is not desirable. No end game that empowers the people includes the State, both the far left and far right recognize this, they merely differ in their understanding of property rights.



We aren't a fucking monarchy. We aren't some dictatorship that chooses their leaders from a council of elder-men. WE are a democracy, where any person has the opportunity to run for office and represent that people within his community, and even the greater national community. 



> But instead of questioning the need for such an apparatus, and why society cannot be complex without it, you assume that its existence is necessary a priori. This is illogical due to anthropology, human cultures naturally became more complex without the creation of Nation-States.



A society without the state is harder to maintain accountability and transparency. 



			
				Bryan Paulson said:
			
		

> Individuals naturally have the authority due to their inherent self-ownership. They will perform the other functions described due to it being a rational enterprise.



Again "self-ownsership" doesn't entail you have the right to own offensive assault weapons. There are situations where individuals on their own cannot defend themselves or ensure their own safety and welfare, thus we establish a government to meet our needs. 



			
				Bryan Paulson said:
			
		

> The idea that they have to vest their authority to someone else does not follow from the premise. Fix the logic. Now.



Your premise isn't the be all end all premise...it's the radical fringe premise that no-one agrees with. Move on or get the fuck out. 



			
				Bryan Paulson said:
			
		

> Yeah, they should just wait until their next chance to vote, at which point they can elect people that say one thing and do another. Then they wait another few years. Repeat ad infinitum.



That's what happens when you let infinite money in politics. When you let corporations, the NRA and other special interest groups influence decisions and voting patterns. Elected officials enter office with a set of ideas and policies in mind, and find it politically untenable to enact said policies because of opposition within an assembly, or other branch of government. 



			
				Bryan Paulson said:
			
		

> You are aware of the corruption, and yet continue to endorse it. The level of faith you show in the State is purely theistic, devoid of logic or reason.



Nothing is perfect. The idea of the state is far less a scary world then your libertarian feudal world. 

And as far as theism goes, look at you and your worship of guns. Unlike you, I don't worship an object. Worshiping death tools is the pinnacle of no logic and reason. Your church is the NRA and gun stores. LePierre is your holy father, Charlton Heston is your saint, and the 2nd Amendment is your single verse bible. 



			
				Bryan Paulson said:
			
		

> Reforms are hilariously slow and inefficient, such as is always the case with bureaucracy.



Innovation, new practices, techniques and procedures in dealing with paperwork, requests, planning, and action are always possibilities in bureaucracy. You need an able, willing, and competent management not haggled with political considerations and posturing to effectively implement policy ideas and goals. 



			
				Bryan Paulson said:
			
		

> Remind me again of a State in history that saw corruption get the boot purely by peaceful means. You know, placing demands and the like. Voting, etc.



Uhhh Richard Nixon? George McCarthy? The slew of Democratic and Republican Senators/Representatives charged with fraud and bribery and corruption over the many years in American history? Rod Blagojervich? Lewis Libby? Jack Abromoff? Ted Stevens? Have you been under a rock?


----------



## LouDAgreat (Jan 17, 2013)

Bryan Paulson said:
			
		

> They can, so long as there is no coercion involved.



To ensure full cooperation, some coercion is absolutely necessary, otherwise you can just do whatever the fuck you want without consequences. 



> There is nothing about an assault rifle by its lonesome that "endangers the welfare of others" when used in a moral manner of self-defense. It does not necessitate collateral damage that would subvert the self-ownership of innocent individuals.



Its mere existence and potential for destruction are whats wrong with it. Firing 30 rounds per clip each one that can tear through a human being...through flesh, organ and bone is enough to make assault rifles inherently evil. The fact you can't see that is plain dumb. Assault rifles aren't potted plants that sit around to look at. You use it for maximum damage. There really is no "moral manner" of using an assault rifle. It is most abhorrent using it in areas populated with civilians. 



> Self-defense can only be morally and logically limited by banning means that cause collateral damage regardless of usage.



Assault rifles most definitely have the potential to cause collateral damage. So thanks for agreeing with me, they should be banned.  



> Do we need to list the number of objects that can be lethal in the hands of "psycho individuals"? What you posted does not form a criticism of the point, and is summarily dismissed as a red herring.




Owning assault rifles is not a rational end to self defence..it's an excessive end. One that is unnecessary and has the potential to cause more unnecessary damage than defensive ends. One again a military weapon created for inflicting maximum damage  against armored soldiers is not a fucking weapon of self defense.
 It is purely offensive. A weapon for the potential repeated punctures through flesh and bone is not rational for self defense.

Go ahead. Make that list of objects that can be lethal in the hands of a psycho killer...Also, when you're making the list state the original purpose of those objects. 

Now compare that list of objects and the killing potential next to assault rifles. Assault rifles win all the time. 

Just because other weapons can cause harm doesn't mean you allow assault rifles.



> You cannot subvert the self-ownership of individuals that have displayed no aggression. Acquiring an assault weapon does not constitute an act of aggression.



First off, owning assault weapons is not the epitome of self-ownership. Cut that link now. You most certainly can subvert ownership of weapons that have the potential to inflict massive civilian casualties. Acquiring an assault weapon puts into your hands incredible amounts of firepower that could lead to many deaths if mishandled. The potential for death is so great in one gun, that it must be banned. And what you want to accumulation of millions of them in every household in every fucking city.  



			
				Bryan Paulson said:
			
		

> No. The state cannot deny the individual the right to their self-defense. There is no logical justification for why self-defense must be non-lethal.



Being the assault weapon is not purposefully designed for self defense, it most certainly can be denied. 



> There is no logical justification for why self-defense must be non-lethal.



Maybe because human life is valuable and there should be every attempt for our weapons to incapacitate and not end lives? Maybe because only the state as the representative of all the people, should in a court of law lay down the final sentence of someones life? Ever think of that? Or are you so obsessed with your gun ownership and the fantasy of maximum firepower you don't give a shit about the potential for danger in an assault weapon? 



			
				Bryan Paulson said:
			
		

> Red herring. Point dismissed.



I think there's a good chance people have sick delusions of power that are fulfilled by owning guns. Time to medicate these fools and ban assault weapons. 



			
				Bryan Paulson said:
			
		

> The "original purpose" of all guns was for the military. Prior to guns, it was swords. Point dismissed for being less than rigorous in logical application.



Single shot hunting rifles were obviously designed for...get this, hunting game, not for killing armored soldiers. Also, not every gun has the same grade of killing power. Your intellectual immaturity is startling. There is absolutely no logical application for millions of civilians owning assault rifles. That's what the military is for. 



			
				Bryan Paulson said:
			
		

> Self-ownership creates a condition for owning all means of self-defense reasonably employed in a moral manner.



No it doesn't. The potential for assault weapons to kill and cause damage to public and private people eliminates any reasonable ownership of those weapons. 



			
				Bryan Paulson said:
			
		

> Assault rifles, being precision tools that do not create collateral damage upon proper usage, fit this standard.



Assault weapons, having high rpm, and as you said, precision firepower make it so much easier for someone to kill dozens of people simply, efficiently and with little effort. And don't pretend that spray fire can't cause collateral damage. The fact that it can, means it will.  Pistols have the same precision with less potential for collateral damage. Pistols, single shot rifles and shotguns are all that should be allowed. They should all be registered and tracked. Owners must go through rigorous background checks to ensure mental stability.



			
				Bryan Paulson said:
			
		

> Now go back and fix your points. The point where you claimed coercion can be displayed in cases of actions not inherently aggressive particularly damning, and undermines the right of self-ownership.



Assault weapons are inherently dangerous, I don't give a shot about trained civilians. They are the most damning tool a household can have. Millions of them in a country, along side with "concealed carry in public" and "stand your ground" will create a nation wide civilian battlefield. 



			
				Bryan Paulson said:
			
		

> When the USSR broke up a number of its weapons were still in satellite republics no longer under the Soviet State, in turning creating weapons of mass destruction that did not effectively belong to Russia, but neither to any other State. Due to treaties they were eventually returned, but that wasn't a compulsory action by the citizens of those republics - why you think it is that a State cannot qualify as "the wrong hands" is beyond me.



The people had basic interests about economic security, food, shelter, healthcare in mind. The poor destitute. Nuclear politics was the last thing on their mind. It was on creating a functioning society and economy. Not to mention, those people probably had no idea where those nukes were located, and were most likely denied access to them by soldiers. Put wealthy, ambitious property owners in the situation, and you might have a different story. Your point about those weapons not being used by those citizens says nothing about the circumstances surrounding those people, and as to why they wouldn't want or need to use those weapons.



			
				Bryan Paulson said:
			
		

> They managed to not find their way into the wrong hands, because people aren't stupid and know how dangerous they are. You act like the State is there to protect against some James Bond scenario.



Maybe because out of pure neglect they just sat around? Maybe because having gone through the pains of communist rule, they wanted nothing to do with nukes? The motives of these people cannot be compared to the motives of other people in any theoretical sense being the conditions and circumstance between either comparison will inherently be different. 



			
				Bryan Paulson said:
			
		

> Individuals still wouldn't own nukes, because a state can effectively limit them for moral and logical reasons. Refer to previous argument discussing immoral means of self-defense.



There is no state in your society, so how does something that doesn't exist keep people from owning nukes? Once the United States dissipates in your fantasy land, whats the stop the rich hand powerful from wanting to solidify their power through nuclear force? 



			
				Bryan Paulson said:
			
		

> Aside from that, individuals wouldn't nuke eachother for the same reason States don't.



I wouldn't be surprised if in a stateless society, nukes are used out of geographic grudges. 



			
				Bryan Paulson said:
			
		

> You are a dipshit if you think States are super-special entities not beholden to the human need for survival.



My point all along is that states are created out of a need for survival, the desire for higher quality of life. Something a stateless society cannot provide. 



			
				Bryan Paulson said:
			
		

> I advocate a state, not a State. Whether that is purely communal, or has something of a unanimously accepted leader is fine.



state, or State, the difference is trivial, in the end the coercion of law will be necessary to ensure cooperation for the best interests of the most people. 



			
				Bryan Paulson said:
			
		

> People would pool their resources regardless of the State. It's happened every time a State has failed in history.



It's increasingly hard for 350 million people to pool resources when those resources are owned by a sliver of owners and investors. When the State dissipated, these owners will seek maximum power to ensure their hold on resources. 



			
				Bryan Paulson said:
			
		

> Vast resources obtained via coercion to ensure prosperity and harmony for generations to come. Self-sustaining control for generations to come. How nice it is to have your hands on the power of level when we have useful idiots like you that view the controllers as benevolent deities.



That's their job asshole. If you don't do it right, get the fuck out. 



			
				Bryan Paulson said:
			
		

> I'm amazed the State doesn't pay you for propaganda efforts.



Does the NRA or any other gun nut club pay for your efforts? 



> "Supportive"? Society, historically, has never been given a choice when it comes to the question of a State. They have always been forced to accept it due to aggression. Any idea of "supporting" the only option is nonsense.



I believe American Independence, even with all its imperfections says otherwise. We continually choose the state even though we have the option to chose less government.


----------



## LouDAgreat (Jan 17, 2013)

Bryan Paulson said:
			
		

> If you believe in personal autonomy, then you must be coerced, else chaos erupts. Terrible logic, but let's play along.



Ownership of assault rifles is not related to personal autonomy, it's related to ownership of dangerous weapons detrimental to public safety. Therefore, you must be coerced to give up those guns. Refuse to pay taxes? Get your ass coerced into paying it. Want to provide an alternative to State bureaucracy in providing essential needs and quality of life services? Sure, but understand the State must function and have authority to act to ensure the survival of all...as was necessary during World War II.



			
				Bryan Paulson said:
			
		

> If an individual competes with the claim that a State owns them, then they must be coerced and subjugated by force in order to ensure the betterment of all?



Not really what I said. 

Anyways, the State should uphold your right to free expression, speech and limited defensive means. Banning assault rifles is not the banning of the idea that own yourself  That's crackpot talk. But banning assault rifles does ensure the safety of all. So if you don't like that, then yes, you should be subjugated by force to agree with that policy for the betterment of all.



> That is some horrifically ass backwards logic that just justified every State-sponsored human rights abuse in history. Congratulations Lou, you are every bit the Authoritarian Socialist I rightly labeled you. In your eyes everything the State does is for the people, and correspondingly beyond moral reproach.



If you had the ability to ascertain context, you'd know I didn't justify state response human rights abuses. The State has limits, but so does the individual. It's the actions of the State and the outcomes of those actions that truly determine whether its for the people. Banning assault weapons is hardly a human rights abuse. It's actually a humane thing to do considering what's happened in Newtown. 



> When the results are the exact same as last time you don't keep trying to put that square peg in the round hole. You try a new solution.



Only a defeatist like you will believe new ideas and innovations in governing will lead to the same result. 



> It's reality. Just because your God, the State, is a collosal fuck-up doesn't mean you keep trying it repeatedly and rejecting the evidence.



Well since you're not very bright, any new idea or technique of governing by the State is automatically rejected by you. 



> Nothing innovates slower than the State. Complex organisms are inefficient in comparison to simpler ones.



With time, there's plenty of chances for it to innovate faster.



> Do I need to list examples of the State spending money that most definitely was not for "for the maximum benefit for all its denizens"?



No, it's the *ATTEMPT* that counts. Failure serves as a lesson for future governments. You look back what happened, and objectionably review where things went wrong and suggest ideas on how to fix things. Where politicians failed, they are voted it and put supplanted by someone who actually knows what they're doing. 



> The State mobilizes resources to fit the State's agenda, which is not nearly as clear as what you think it is. Every time Congress votes to raise their pay it sure as hell not for the "maximum benefit for all its denizens".



The agenda of the State usually coincides with the interests of the people, not all the time, but these instances of transgression should not eliminate a necessary institution of society. 



> That inherent duty belongs solely to the individual, the community can make no such claim to his "efforts". Unless, of course, you are advocating Communism now, which would dismiss the right to the fruit of your labor. That wouldn't surprise me much at this point.



The community/State has a duty to ensure the safety and welfare of its citizens. That doesn't entail it's a communist state. 



> Acts of aggression do not form an argument against the ability to use an assault rifle in moral defense.



It absolutely does. The potential for death in the offensive use of assault weapons eliminates the morality of its wide use in moral defense. 

You're saying assault weapons should be allowed in public places. Assault weapons in public create an unsafe hazardous environment. Dozens, Hundreds, thousands of people carrying assault weapons on a normal day in a downtown business district. God forbid one gun goes off, everyone takes their mi-16s and Ak-47s and starts shooting up everyone. The consequences of mass gun proliferation will lead to loss in quality of life. 



> A State concentrates accountability and transparency for policies and laws implemented? The same State that you, yourself, recognize as corrupt and corruptable?



Yes. Corruption isn't absolute. It can be limited, even eliminated. The corruption of the state in one facet does not necessarily prohibit it from fulfilling its duties. 



> And one State doesn't need to represent 350,000,000 people. It's ludicrous nonsense, an archaic parasite only kept about due to its monopoly on power. The polarization of American politics highlights the point.



Yes, it fucking does. 1,500 or any other combination of States representing 350,000,000 is far worse. Once there are competing sovereignty claims there are natural conflicts and wars. 

I love how you act like the privilege to own weapons of mass destruction exclusively is a good thing for the State (an entity you have already admitted to be corrupt), but awful for a state in which everyone would share in the ownership. You are, without a doubt, a full on theist when it comes to all things Statist.

What makes a "state" any less corruptible? Because they share your libertarian nonsense? Really, the more I think of it, they're the same damn thing. state/State will assign someone to safeguard weapons of mass destruction. There's really little difference. 



> The ability to rob from minorities to favor the majority is not a good thing. It is inherently unethical, and a disgusting, repugnant action that should be rightly condemned.



The ability of minority individuals and corporations, beholden to themselves accountable to no-one but themselves, to control large swathes of property and resources for their own luxury is inherently unethical, and a disgusting pregnant action that should rightly be condemned. 



> Never mind that the State tends to monopolize industries, putting resources and property into the hands of a select few on the backs of the many.



Minorities do the same exact thing. 



> Your entire position is morally bankrupt, ethically unsound, and illogical.



Right back at ya. 



> The states in history that eventually became a State did so at the point of a lance. Native Americans, Medieval Ireland, et al. The list is extensive. They did not do it by choice, they were slaughtered into compliance.



The states you listed weren't advanced in the least. Welcome to the modern age buddy. Try to implement your state world in the context of corporations, large military, and large populations. It will fail instantly and lead to another Dark Age. 



> The people that would "rise up" would be the ones with universal acceptance, and given the leader would have no inherent right to violate the rights of others (again, unlike the State), this wouldn't cause massive problems.



And what if there was no "universal acceptance"? 



> The people can figure out who is qualified and who isn't by examining the human resources available.



Something very similar to what the State does. 



> Elections do not do jack shit to change the usage of weapons.
> 
> Bush -> Drone Strikes.
> 
> ...



Don't exactly see whats wrong with drone strikes. If Bush used drone strikes earlier in the Iraq war to bomb supposed Iraqi bomb sites, maybe an expensive invasion couldve been avoided. Perhaps Bush learned too late the usefulness of drone strikes. I'm all for drone strikes if we can confirm a target. 



> In my "sicko world" people are only "willing to kill" in self-defense. An "environment of potential mass killing" exists regardless of assault rifles, the only question is the means used and the sociopath behind it.
> 
> Your appeals to emotion are dead on arrival.



Yes, because mass killing will happen anyways, we should legalize assault weapons to make mass killing more likely to happen. 

You know rapists are gonna rape people anyway, lets just legalize that too.

I wouldn't call that an appeal to emotion, that's an appeal to fact. 



> Do you want to take a guess why this is illogical, or do I need to explain it? Again.



Because assholes like you will fight tooth nail and bullet to protect an outdated right?


----------



## Bryan Paulsen (Jan 17, 2013)

LouDAgreat said:


> The right to secure one's self does not entitle one to own heavy assault weapons. Handguns will have to suffice.



Arbitrary limitations on what one can/cannot own are both illogical and irrational.

You have failed, repeatedly now, to develop a logically consistent criteria for what qualifies as a legitimate means of self-defense. I expounded on one earlier, and you offered nothing in return.

Somehow you think handguns (most of which are semi-automatic, like the "assault rifles" you want to ban) are permissible, but an AR-15 isn't. There is no point in taking you serious if you can't be intellectually consistent. New York police officers carry semi-automatic handguns with 15 rounds. That is, hypothetically, enough to kill 15 people, but yet you're somehow only concerned about assault rifles.



> Owning assault weapons is inherently wrong, the existence of which led to this crimes.



Establish an ethical model in which owning an assault weapon is "inherently wrong".



> Absolutely not. Democracy and our political efficacy place limits. Voting in numbers brings about change and restores limits that may be lost.



Appeal to popularity doesn't establish whether voting _for_ something legitimizes the activity. There should *never* be a question of rights being up for a vote.

It's the useful idiots, like you, that hold up democracy as something uniquely special. Pure democracy is simply tyranny of the majority.



> Individuals of the state are still must abide by the laws that everyone else must follow. If they don't, you vote them out. Just because a state doesn't follow it ,doesn't mean it won't forever and ever. The purpose of democracy is to ensure the state does follow the values of the society.



Wrong.



And not all government positions are subject to vote, or even most of them. A great example is the police - you get no say in who runs city police departments. You can only vote for sheriffs.

It is clear, as usual, you don't know what the fuck you are talking about. Just like you didn't know the police aren't responsible for protecting you.



> Once again, the Supreme Court has a history of ruling absolute precedent.See Plessy v Ferguson. That's why future courts review old cases and create new precedent. Courts, like the laws and the society in general change. They are not stuck in stone. Whatever your argument for court jurisprudence in supporting your claims for "self  defence" can be overturned in the future.



Until they do overturn it, you're left pissing in the wind.

And if they _did_ overturn it, the State would collapse due to the overwhelming economic burden. That is the primary reason the courts keep leaving the responsibility to the individual. It is painfully obvious you did not read the decisions.



> An error in philosophy that must be reviewed.



It's not an "error in philosophy", unless of course you Authoritarians want the State to give everyone bodyguards.

Such sophomoric reasoning was rightly rejected by judges, thankfully.



> ....I can't believe this. Have YOU contemplated the consequences of your gun society? Have you contemplated the consequences every person owning assault weapons in churches, parks, school, hospitals, government buildings, subways, buses, crowded streets and thoroughfares? I mean have you ever stepped outside Arizona?



This is classical psychological projection, the mistaken belief that the _proletariat_ is going to start doing outrageous things if they're all armed. You think this sort of stupid shit because you don't trust yourself to own firearms, and project that insecurity to those around you.

Do you piss yourself when you see someone practicing open carry?

I've lived in California (Corona, Anaheim), Arizona (Phoenix, Casa Grande, Stanfield), and Utah (West Valley). The first one on that list is the only State in which I lived near drive-by shootings. Not-so-remarkably, California also has very strict gun control. You don't see civilians carrying, but rather just the criminal element. California's violent crime rate is higher than both Arizona and Utah.

But it's the _proletariat_ owning guns that's the problem according to you. Good God.



> No wonder why America is such a great country.No wonder why Europeans worked so hard to overthrow kings and Queens and create social democracies. No wonder why we Americans work so hard to perfect our Union. Unfortunately, shitbags like you try to  implode it with your gun mindset.



America became great because of the desire of its people to be free, and to pursue their own ambitions. Not because of the government and a belief in its general benevolence.

If the country ever implodes it will be because of people like you that think stripping the rights of your fellow man is considered acceptable behavior.



> A society without the state is harder to maintain accountability and transparency.



Okay, I'd love to see where you derived this conclusion from. Where, in the entire history of human anthropology, has this ever been true?

Where are these stateless societies with high levels of secrecy and poor social accountability? Because I can offer you up a whole fucking mountain of various Authoritarian States that crucify your stupidity.



> Again "self-ownsership" doesn't entail you have the right to own offensive assault weapons. There are situations where individuals on their own cannot defend themselves or ensure their own safety and welfare, thus we establish a government to meet our needs.



The government is an _a posterori_ consideration for individuals, chiefly concerned with, "*After* something happens, _then what_?"

Before _a posterori_, logically, there is _a priori_, and self-ownership, being an _a priori_ assumption which self-defense stems from, *always takes logical precedence*.

You also make the logical mistake of calling an assault rifle "offensive", when they are also _defensive_.

This is basic logic. I suggest you familarize yourself with it. After familarizing yourself with it, then you should set about actually codifying your position into a consistently logical thesis. Right now it's a qualitative, relativistic mess.



> That's what happens when you let infinite money in politics. When you let corporations, the NRA and other special interest groups influence decisions and voting patterns. Elected officials enter office with a set of ideas and policies in mind, and find it politically untenable to enact said policies because of opposition within an assembly, or other branch of government.



Corporations exist due to the State, you stupid fuck. Their basis began as far back as Rome, and have expanded until the current day. You can't bitch about something *your dumb ass endorses*.

Special interest groups are a reflection of the concerns of citizens. The problem isn't special interests, the problem is having a monopoly on force (the State) that can pick winners and losers according to their whims (popularity, money, etc.).



> And as far as theism goes, look at you and your worship of guns. Unlike you, I don't worship an object. Worshiping death tools is the pinnacle of no logic and reason.



I worship self-ownership and all that it entails, including the self-ownership of other individuals. Self-defense included. Guns are a means to an end.

You don't believe in self-defense, because you think the State has a special responsibility to defend you. You are, in short, theistically devoted to a State. A State that has even told you that it isn't going to do it.

This is what happens when your position lacks logic, but then, theists have never needed logic. Just faith.



> Uhhh Richard Nixon? George McCarthy? The slew of Democratic and Republican Senators/Representatives charged with fraud and bribery and corruption over the many years in American history? Rod Blagojervich? Lewis Libby? Jack Abromoff? Ted Stevens? Have you been under a rock?



Yeah, because that was the totality of corruption in government. 

In case you missed my point - I am talking about the festering wound of corruption being bled *white* by voting.

Do you think getting rid of Nixon, for example, put a halt to corruption in Washington? If you do, I've got some beach front property here in Arizona to sell you.


----------



## Bender (Jan 17, 2013)

@ thread

Come the fuck on people, there's a new thread talking about this.  We don't need to bring this one back up.


----------



## Bryan Paulsen (Jan 17, 2013)

LouDAgreat said:


> To ensure full cooperation, some coercion is absolutely necessary, otherwise you can just do whatever the fuck you want without consequences.



This is the _false dilemma_ fallacy.

Initiation of force, when not in response to aggression, is unethical. Coercion, for that reason, is typically considered a crime.

A response to an initiation of force is ethical. 

In this case, what you are proposing in unethical. "Ensuring full cooperation" via subversion of an autonomous individual without provocation is an illegitimate activity.



> Its mere existence and potential for destruction are whats wrong with it. Firing 30 rounds per clip each one that can tear through a human being...through flesh, organ and bone is enough to make assault rifles inherently evil. The fact you can't see that is plain dumb. Assault rifles aren't potted plants that sit around to look at. You use it for maximum damage. There really is no "moral manner" of using an assault rifle. It is most abhorrent using it in areas populated with civilians.



You use it for maximum effectiveness in securing your person. Self-defense is the moral usage for an assault rifle.

You are, of course, welcome to (attempt to) demonstrate how usage of an assault rifle in self-defense qualifies as immoral.



> Assault rifles most definitely have the potential to cause collateral damage. So thanks for agreeing with me, they should be banned.



The issue is not _potential_ for collateral damage, and never was.

The issue is does it cause collateral damage _regardless of usage_.

It most certainly does not, rendering your superfluous, relativistic, and therefore illogical consideration of "potential" a red herring.



> Owning assault rifles is not a rational end to self defence..it's an excessive end. One that is unnecessary and has the potential to cause more unnecessary damage than defensive ends. One again a military weapon created for inflicting maximum damage  against armored soldiers is not a fucking weapon of self defense.



Necessary stems from an idea of need. Need is a qualitative, relativistic consideration. Relativism does not form the core of a serious argument.

Fix your logic. Again.



> It is purely offensive. A weapon for the potential repeated punctures through flesh and bone is not rational for self defense.



Potential is relativistic, again.

Any means of self-defense that does not qualify as unwarranted aggression against innocents (their person and/or property) is rational, by the very definition of what constitutes self-defense.



> First off, owning assault weapons is not the epitome of self-ownership. Cut that link now. You most certainly can subvert ownership of weapons that have the potential to inflict massive civilian casualties. Acquiring an assault weapon puts into your hands incredible amounts of firepower that could lead to many deaths if mishandled. The potential for death is so great in one gun, that it must be banned. And what you want to accumulation of millions of them in every household in every fucking city.



Owning an assault rifle is a means of securing one's general welfare by providing for one's self-defense. It doesn't "epitomize" anything.

Subverting the ownership of any self-defensive tool that can demonstrably be used for precisely that purpose is illogical, and irrational, as previously demonstrated.



> Maybe because human life is valuable and there should be every attempt for our weapons to incapacitate and not end lives? *Maybe because only the state as the representative of all the people, should in a court of law lay down the final sentence of someones life?* Ever think of that? Or are you so obsessed with your gun ownership and the fantasy of maximum firepower you don't give a shit about the potential for danger in an assault weapon?



The State is not God, and any argument concerning the bolded is theistic drivel.

Rights are not subject to votes, and rights are all I am concerned with.



> Single shot hunting rifles were obviously designed for...get this, hunting game, not for killing armored soldiers. Also, not every gun has the same grade of killing power. Your intellectual immaturity is startling. There is absolutely no logical application for millions of civilians owning assault rifles. That's what the military is for.



The military is for dealing with foreign aggressors.

The _proletariat_ (your "millions of civilians") are perfectly entitled to own a valid means of self-defense, assault rifles included.



> No it doesn't. The *potential* for assault weapons to kill and cause damage to public and private people eliminates any reasonable ownership of those weapons.



Relativism. Again.



> Assault weapons, having high rpm, and as you said, precision firepower make it so much easier for someone to kill dozens of people simply, efficiently and with little effort. And don't pretend that spray fire can't cause collateral damage. The fact that it can, means it will.  Pistols have the same precision with less potential for collateral damage. Pistols, single shot rifles and shotguns are all that should be allowed. They should all be registered and tracked. Owners must go through rigorous background checks to ensure mental stability.



Arbitrary standards are ridiculous, and bereft of intellectual significance.

Self-defense doesn't always mean just one attacker. Never mind that by invoking the nebulous "potential" argument (again: relativism, your argument has already failed), you have ruled out any means of projectile-based self-defense.

And this is why you gun control advocates boil down to an appeal to emotion, and not logic. The "potential" loss of human life scares the shit out of you, and that's what drives your "need" to ban them. Potential outliers scare you to the point that responsible owners should have them forcibly taken from them.



> Assault weapons are inherently dangerous, I don't give a shot about trained civilians. They are the most damning tool a household can have. Millions of them in a country, along side with "concealed carry in public" and "stand your ground" will create a nation wide civilian battlefield.



Notice how we aren't a battlefield right now with *many* states having concealed carry, some having open carry, some having stand your ground, and the proliferation of millions of firearms.

Methinks the lady doth protest too much.



> There is no state in your society, so how does something that doesn't exist keep people from owning nukes? Once the United States dissipates in your fantasy land, whats the stop the rich hand powerful from wanting to solidify their power through nuclear force?



There is a state, just no State. A state will be perfectly able to socially regulate nukes. More likely is that they would mostly be disassembled due to their threat and expensive upkeep - part of the reason Uncle Sam can have an absurd stockpile is an infinite amount of funds to draw on in the form of taxpayers, and loans.



> I wouldn't be surprised if in a stateless society, nukes are used out of geographic grudges.



I wouldn't be surprised, if in a State society, nukes are used out of geographic grudges.

Oh wait, Hiroshima and Nagasaki.



> My point all along is that states are created out of a need for survival, the desire for higher quality of life. Something a stateless society cannot provide.



A stateless society forms an organic state. Communal, tribal, familal, urban, et al. It is not divorced, in any fashion, from the individual. Nor is it compulsory to stay in any organic state by threat of force. 



> state, or State, the difference is trivial, in the end the coercion of law will be necessary to ensure cooperation for the best interests of the most people.



Law is reactionary. It reacts to aggression, and represents an abstract version of self-defense application. Coercion is not the correct word to describe the application of law.

The difference between the two is not at all trivial. The former is organic, the latter entirely artificial.



> It's increasingly hard for 350 million people to pool resources when those resources are owned by a sliver of owners and investors. When the State dissipated, these owners will seek maximum power to ensure their hold on resources.



Resource concentration stems from State sponsorship of corporations via legislation. 

And you fail to realize that if the State collapsed corporations would actually be _weakened_, subsidized with taxpayer money and State enforcement of arbitrary property rights as they are.



> I believe American Independence, even with all its imperfections says otherwise. We continually choose the state even though we have the option to chose less government.



The majority continually chooses the State, whether the minority likes it or not.

*I* do not choose the State, and most certainly do not choose more government. Assholes like *you* choose it, and point a gun to my head should I object.

The same useful idiots that decry tools of self-defense are the first ones ready to initiate violence should one want to own a certain self-defense tool. Unethical, immoral, intellectually bankrupt Statists always do.


----------



## Bryan Paulsen (Jan 17, 2013)

LouDAgreat said:


> Ownership of assault rifles is not related to personal autonomy, it's related to ownership of dangerous weapons detrimental to public safety. Therefore, you must be coerced to give up those guns. Refuse to pay taxes? Get your ass coerced into paying it. Want to provide an alternative to State bureaucracy in providing essential needs and quality of life services? Sure, but understand the State must function and have authority to act to ensure the survival of all...as was necessary during World War II.



Individual rights come before "public safety". "Public safety" being a nebulous, relativistic concept that just opens the door for arbitrary rule of law.



> Anyways, the State should uphold your right to free expression, speech and limited defensive means. Banning assault rifles is not the banning of the idea that own yourself  That's crackpot talk. But banning assault rifles does ensure the safety of all. So if you don't like that, then yes, you should be subjugated by force to agree with that policy for the betterment of all.



Your relativistic understanding of rights is rejected. You have no more right to uphold free expression than you do to limit defensive means. The autonomy of my person is expressed equally in both.

Your willingness to use force to force people to comply with what you want is disgusting. You should take a long look in the mirror and determine if that's the kind of person you really are.

(although I do find it funny you would only send the State as your proxy - you wouldn't have the balls to try to take anything from someone by force in person. Typical Authoritarian Collectivist.)



> If you had the ability to ascertain context, you'd know I didn't justify state response human rights abuses. The State has limits, but so does the individual. It's the actions of the State and the outcomes of those actions that truly determine whether its for the people. Banning assault weapons is hardly a human rights abuse. It's actually a humane thing to do considering what's happened in Newtown.



I don't want to hear about State limits from you at this point. You're the same ignorant fuck that just endorsed State theft from individuals because it suits your opinion on what constitutes public safety.

A person that has no understanding of human rights has no room to speak of what constitutes human rights abuse.



> Well since you're not very bright, any new idea or technique of governing by the State is automatically rejected by you.



Your undying *faith* and *theistic devotion* to the State has been previously noted. No matter how badly it _ever_ fails you will be the first one to draw from the well of hope. Truly, hope springs eternal.



> No, it's the *ATTEMPT* that counts. Failure serves as a lesson for future governments. You look back what happened, and objectionably review where things went wrong and suggest ideas on how to fix things. Where politicians failed, they are voted it and put supplanted by someone who actually knows what they're doing.



Humans have attempted, for the last couple thousand years, to give other humans a monopoly on force to mete out a just society on their fellow man.

During those thousand years the same cycle has amply demonstrated that the attempt inevitably fails, eventually. Spectacularly so.

Why? Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.



> The agenda of the State usually coincides with the interests of the people, not all the time, but these instances of transgression should not eliminate a necessary institution of society.



Violations of human rights should absolutely eliminate a need for an overbearing State with massive responsibility.

I suggest you look up the term "democide". Concentration of power is the greatest threat to human life on the planet.



> It absolutely does. The potential for death in the offensive use of assault weapons eliminates the morality of its wide use in moral defense.



Potential. Relativism. Again. 



> You're saying assault weapons should be allowed in public places. Assault weapons in public create an *unsafe hazardous environment.* Dozens, Hundreds, thousands of people carrying assault weapons on a normal day in a downtown business district. God forbid one gun goes off, everyone takes their mi-16s and Ak-47s and starts shooting up everyone. The consequences of mass gun proliferation will lead to loss in quality of life.



Psychological projection. Due to your irrational fear of guns, or rather the potential of them to kill multiple individuals, you are uncomfortable in their presence.

Not everyone is.

And one person shooting doesn't mean everyone shoots. The MAD theory applies just as well guns as it does to nuclear warfare.

Your fear of guns is entirely irrational.



> Yes. Corruption isn't absolute. It can be limited, even eliminated. The corruption of the state in one facet does not necessarily prohibit it from fulfilling its duties.



Okay. Let's perform a thought exercise.

How do you eliminate corruption in the State?

And you just excused corruption if it "fulfills its duties". The things you catch coming out of a Statist's mouth.



> Yes, it fucking does. 1,500 or any other combination of States representing 350,000,000 is far worse. Once there are competing sovereignty claims there are natural conflicts and wars.



You don't need the State to adjudicate conflicts. That was going on every location without a nation-state dating back to prehistory.

The fear of wars is irrational - history highlights that wars primarily occur as a result of Authoritarian States. Google the term "democide", again. 



> What makes a "state" any less corruptible? Because they share your libertarian nonsense? Really, the more I think of it, they're the same damn thing. state/State will assign someone to safeguard weapons of mass destruction. There's really little difference.



A lack of a monopoly on force. So long as there is no existent monopoly on force any question of corruptability is moot. 



> The ability of minority individuals and corporations, beholden to themselves accountable to no-one but themselves, to control large swathes of property and resources for their own luxury is inherently unethical, and a disgusting pregnant action that should rightly be condemned.



Note that this isn't possible without the State, and its interpretation of property rights.

You have no right to bitch about the repercussions stemming from the very thing you endorse.



> The states you listed weren't advanced in the least. Welcome to the modern age buddy. Try to implement your state world in the context of corporations, large military, and large populations. It will fail instantly and lead to another Dark Age.



Technological superiority, or greater numbers, do not constitute a criticism of society. Good societies have lost in war plenty of times (see: victims of Mongolian expansion). 

Britain had to perform genocide against Ireland to break their will. You know, because that's the sort of thing States are into. Genocide and democide.



> Don't exactly see whats wrong with drone strikes. If Bush used drone strikes earlier in the Iraq war to bomb supposed Iraqi bomb sites, maybe an expensive invasion couldve been avoided. Perhaps Bush learned too late the usefulness of drone strikes. I'm all for drone strikes if we can confirm a target.



Human rights violations, for starters.



> You know rapists are gonna rape people anyway, lets just legalize that too.



Rape violates self-ownership. There's a logical reason to ban it. Unlike your sophomoric gun control advocation.



> I wouldn't call that an appeal to emotion, that's an appeal to fact.



Emotions are not facts.



> Because assholes like you will fight tooth nail and bullet to protect an outdated right?



_Molon labe._


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 17, 2013)

Thread smells like SOCIALISM/COMMUNISM/FACISM/LIBERALISM SOMETHING I IGNORANTLY USE INTERCHANGEABLY AND MAKE SYNONYMOUS WITH "EVIL" TO ME!


----------



## Elim Rawne (Jan 17, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Thread smells like SOCIALISM/COMMUNISM/FACISM/LIBERALISM SOMETHING I IGNORANTLY USE INTERCHANGEABLY AND MAKE SYNONYMOUS WITH "EVIL" TO ME!



More like sophomore/authoritarian/utilitarian, but yea


----------

