# Official Gun regulations, accidents, and shit news thread



## hadou (Jan 15, 2013)

> The National Rifle Association, exactly a month after the shooting at Newtown, Conn., has released a branded target shooting game deemed suitable for kids ages 4 and up.
> The NRA has been highly critical of the video game industry following the elementary school shooting in Newtown that left 26 dead and sparked a national debate about guns and school safety.
> "NRA: Practice Range," available free in the iTunes app store, allows players to shoot at coffin-shaped targets in indoor or outdoor settings. For $.99 extra, players can upgrade their gun to a pistol grip Mossberg or a semi-automatic sniper rifle.
> According to the description on iTunes, the game is intended to instill "safe and responsible ownership through fun challenges and realistic simulations." And because it contains "no objectionable material," per iTunes' rating system, it's suitable for children as young as 4. Apple employees vet applications before they are included in the store and approve age ranges for games.
> ...



http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/nra-releases-free-target-practice-app-ages-4-151235393.html

Talk about being insensitive.


----------



## Roman (Jan 15, 2013)

Holy shit. Now they want to teach kids to handle guns too? Seriously?


----------



## Hand Banana (Jan 15, 2013)

> In between shooting, the game also dispenses gun safety advice, like to wear protective eye gear.



Sure, that makes sense to a four year old.


----------



## Blackrose16 (Jan 15, 2013)

This is just PR bait to get the Game Industry all Herp-a-Derp about it. The NRA needs to get their dicks off the whole idea that violent video games cause these shootings. They are all just hypocritical bastards.


----------



## Mist Puppet (Jan 15, 2013)

Duck Hunt > this game


----------



## Megaharrison (Jan 15, 2013)

It won't help anyone shoot better anyway. Only way to practice is to do the real thing.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 15, 2013)

Bill the Troll said:


> It won't help anyone shoot better anyway. Only way to practice is to do the real thing.


Basically this, people don't understand how many factors go into shooting. 

I hate when I see movies with someone who boasts that "the hero could have just shot the tires out and no one would have been hurt". 

Or my idiotic friend who said during Act of Valor that they should have rolled a grenade under a car that was following them at like sixty miles an hour...


----------



## makeoutparadise (Jan 15, 2013)

NRA president: it's not our fault kids are shooting up schools violent video games are doing that.
Now get this new shooting game for your kids so we can recruit more gun members while they're gun. 
The faster they know how to shoot a gun the better


----------



## Bender (Jan 15, 2013)

Saw this earlier.

Go fuck your selves NRA. See this is why the white house didn't want you anywhere in their meetings. You insensitive retarded fucks.


----------



## Donquixote Doflamingo (Jan 15, 2013)

Pretty sure call of duty is more helpful then this app will be in terms of learning how to shoot a gun. 

Aim+Pull(click) trigger=?

Not that hard. Just need practice.


----------



## Mintaka (Jan 15, 2013)

TROLOLOLOLOLOL.


----------



## spankdatbitch (Jan 15, 2013)

Haha you guys are just eating up the anti gun propaganda like candy ain't cha?
The NRA was hypocritical..no kidding?
Cool story bro..I wasn't aware that hypocrisy and bias was exclusively the property of the Republican party and right wing politics


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 15, 2013)

spankdatbitch said:


> Haha you guys are just eating up the anti gun propaganda like candy ain't cha?
> The NRA was hypocritical..no kidding?
> Cool story bro..I wasn't aware that hypocrisy and bias was exclusively the property of the Republican party and right wing politics


Do you know what hypocritical means? They sit back and blame video games and then turn around and make one to get kids and people into guns. 

Not only that, they do so within a month of a shooting tragedy. 

And the Republican party is more hypocritical than most. A good example is them begging for hurricane relief money for Katrina in the last five years...then denying money to Sandy victims. 

So, yeah. You can shut the fuck up now.


----------



## spankdatbitch (Jan 15, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Do you know what hypocritical means? They sit back and blame video games and then turn around and make one to get kids and people into guns.
> 
> Not only that, they do so within a month of a shooting tragedy.
> 
> ...



1: Oh noez..they made a target shooting game within a month of a school shooting..how scandalous!

As opposed to liberal hollywood actors that whine and bitch about gun violence while nearly their entire cinematic success is based off of movies that glorify gun murder and violence I suppose? 

As opposed to Liberal politicians and lawmakers that call for gun control,yet keep such weapons themselves or demand heavily armed guards for their families?

LMAO!!

2: Aww how adorable..you still actually play along with all the Democrat vs Republican bullshit?

They're both shit..and have sold everyone out to corporations,international bankers,and wall street.So no..one side isn't more hypocritical than the other outside of fanboy delusions.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 15, 2013)

spankdatbitch said:


> 1: Oh noez..they made a target shooting game within a month of a school shooting..how scandalous!
> 
> As opposed to liberal hollywood actors that whine and bitch about gun violence while nearly their entire cinematic success is based off of movies that glorify gun murder and violence I suppose?
> 
> ...



Way to not address anything I said. Instead of addressing the topic, create some strawmen and hope no one notices. 

Thanks for that, I thought I might actually have to come up with something to say back


----------



## Griever (Jan 15, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Do you know what hypocritical means? They sit back and blame video games and then turn around and make one to get kids and people into guns.
> 
> Not only that, they do so within a month of a shooting tragedy.



That's not hypocritical. From what i understand of this game it's just basically a digital shooting range, it doesn't qualify as a violent video game.

though don't get me wrong here, blaming video games for shootings is nonsensical. 

I mean maybe i'm just not that sensitive or you all or over-sensitive, i don't know. But either way i really see no reason for people to flip a bitch over this.


----------



## spankdatbitch (Jan 15, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Way to not address anything I said. Instead of addressing the topic, create some strawmen and hope no one notices.
> 
> Thanks for that, I thought I might actually have to come up with something to say back



Shut the fuck up with the Strawman bullshit.You guys pull that crock out of your ass every time the tables get turned on you.We all know you guys only that flag when it's in your favor.

You want to point out why Republicans and/or conservatives are such hypocrites and you supposedly are so much better eh?Well you got the same medicine thrown back in your face,and now you're butt hurt there is shit smeared all over it.

The day liberal idols stop making their own fortunes off of glorifying the same thing they claim to oppose you can talk.The day Liberals stop supporting 1 million abortions (AKA baby genocide)a year while whining and bitching about 20 something kids being killed with a gun you can talk.

Until that day kindly STFU and save yourselves any further embaressment


----------



## Ben Tennyson (Jan 15, 2013)

conservative logic.


----------



## Raiden (Jan 15, 2013)

Terrible but revealing. This is a good indicator of how strong the lobby thinks it is.


----------



## ShadowReij (Jan 15, 2013)

Bill the Troll said:


> It won't help anyone shoot better anyway. Only way to practice is to do the real thing.



Pretty much my thoughts. Just add the "really for four year olds?"


----------



## Bender (Jan 15, 2013)

*Official Gun regulations news thread*

Since there are likely to be many threads about the progress about the reformation of guns I thought I would make one.

Here's the latest story of the white house's announcement about their decision concerning guns:

*White House: Obama To Push For Assault Weapons Ban*



> WASHINGTON -- With President Barack Obama set to introduce a comprehensive set of gun policy proposals on Wednesday, a top allied think tank is urging Democrats to adjust their framing of the issue.
> 
> The Center for American Progress has already put out a series of legislative recommendations in response to the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School last month. On Tuesday, the center put out a messaging memo.
> 
> ...





*NY Passes Toughest Gun Laws In Nation*



> ALBANY, N.Y. ? Jumping out ahead of Washington, New York state enacted the nation's toughest gun restrictions Tuesday and the first since the Connecticut school massacre, including an expanded assault-weapon ban and background checks for buying ammunition.
> 
> Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed the measure into law less than an hour after it won final passage in the Legislature, with supporters hailing it as a model for the nation and gun-rights activists condemning it as a knee-jerk piece of legislation that won't make anyone safer and is too extreme to win support in the rest of the country.
> 
> ...






Assault weapons ban 

Also NYC  congrats


----------



## Griever (Jan 15, 2013)

originally i had this posted in  thread but i'll just go on ahead and repost it here. 



This video shows the difference between a legal "Assault Rifle" and the true military Grade Assault Weapons.



*Spoiler*: _The truth about Semi-auto firearms_ 



[YOUTUBE]ysf8x477c30[/YOUTUBE]




And this video show the difference in firepower between an AK-47 and your typical hunting rifle.


*Spoiler*: _The truth about AK-47 Firepower_ 



[YOUTUBE]Vgr3kTU68uw[/YOUTUBE]





I doubt very seriously that most people even know what the federal assault weapon ban was actually banning even though they support it's re-institution with Such Vigor. 






> The term, assault weapon, when used in the context of assault weapon laws refers primarily (but not exclusively) to semi-automatic firearms that possess the cosmetic features of an assault rifle that is fully automatic. Actually possessing the operational features, such as 'full-auto', changes the classification from assault weapons to Title II weapons. Merely the possession of cosmetic features is enough to warrant classification as an assault weapon. Semi-automatic firearms, when fired, automatically extract the spent cartridge casing and load the next cartridge into the chamber, ready to fire again. They do not fire automatically like a machine gun. Rather, only one round is fired with each trigger pull.[2]
> 
> In the former U.S. law, the legal term assault weapon included certain specific semi-automatic firearm models by name (e.g., Colt AR-15, TEC-9, non-select-fire AK-47s produced by three manufacturers, and Uzis) and other semi-automatic firearms because they possess a minimum set of cosmetic features from the following list of features:
> 
> ...





most of this shit is simply a cosmetic change to your typical hunting rifle. 

If you had watched the videos above you would know that Semi-auto rifles are very popular in hunting and game. And semi-auto pistols are highly popular for home defense, more so than the revolver.  

It's very telling when people consider one distinction of an Assault rifle as having a pistol grip. while most probably couldn't point out an Assault rifle amongst other types of rifles but label them all as fully-auto assault weapons regardless..... mostly the fault of the liberal media and their misinformation and straight up ignorance. 

And then we have something so foolish as a muzzle mounted grenade launcher in there, grenades by themselves have been illegal since the  . no law abiding citizen owns one grenade much less a grenade launcher, it's ridiculous. I mean even if you owned one, you couldn't buy the Grenades for it anyways = pointless.


And guess what, alot of Hunting Rifles use detachable clips. It's not a trait that only "assault weapons" or assault weapon lookalikes share.

Then we have the Bayonet mount.... correct me if i'm wrong, but i don't think there has ever even been a criminal who has attacked anyone with a Bayonet... either way, useless. 

The Folding/collapsible stock is just as pointless. 



This is all pointless shit, and the reason for that is because lawmakers cannot make the distinction between a real Assault weapon and a mere lookalike, by the distinctions made in this law i can own a gun that has the exact same function as my legal AK-47 but with simple cosmetic changes. and in the end that's all it is, cosmetic. 


as for extended magazines:
Seung-Hui Cho (the Virginia Tech shooter) reloaded his weapons a total of 15 times killing 33 people and injuring 15, that would have only been two more reloads. 

The video below is of Suzanna Gratia Hupp, survivor of the Luby's massecre in Texas, 1991:

*Spoiler*: _Suzanna Gratia Hupp explains meaning of 2nd Amendment_ 



[YOUTUBE]M1u0Byq5Qis[/YOUTUBE]




how long does it take to reload a clip?: 1.5 Seconds... is there anyone here who will claim they can tackle a gunman in that amount of time?... thought not.


*Spoiler*: _Fast reload_ 



[YOUTUBE]Ls4Uq1aCiTA[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]ATKEtf4H4Ik[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]8adGfEJ-2Fg[/YOUTUBE]







> Miculek also demonstrated the ability to fire five shots from a revolver on target with a S&W Model 64 ported barrel revolver in 0.57 seconds on September 25, 2003. This nearly matches the record held by Ed McGivern of 0.45 sec (first shot on 9/13/1932, reproduced 4 times on 12/8/1932). Originally recorded as "two-fifths of a second", the resolution of the timing equipment in 1932 was only 1/20th of a second, so the actual figure could have been anywhere between 0.40 and 0.45 seconds.





*Spoiler*: _World Record 12 Shots In Under 3 Seconds _ 



[YOUTUBE]lLk1v5bSFPw[/YOUTUBE]




Can anyone point out how a ban on extended magazines would make a difference, when with practice one can learn to reload a gun with such speed?. and it's pretty inconspicuous to practice as well.

"Assault rifles" are not the menace the media makes them out to be, and account for only a small amount of overall gun crime in the US, the weapon of choice?: a small caliber handgun. strangely enough the same kind of weapon most anti-gun proponents are OK with.

Also *Bender*. Thank you for proving my point .

*One more fun fact i'll leave you with.

Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto: “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.”*


----------



## TenshiNeko (Jan 15, 2013)

It's just a target shooting game. There are tons of those around. It's not a big deal.  Like an arcade game. It's not going to teach anybody how to shoot a real gun. Probably it's called "suitable for 4 and up" because they only shoot targets, not even people-shaped targets. They're not even shaped like little ducks.... No violence, no "splatting" of anything in any way. The NRA has just put some educational gun safety tips in it.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Jan 15, 2013)

only days after saying video games promote 'violence'


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 15, 2013)

Only a few more days until the NRA's bigger release: School Shooter Massacre.


----------



## TenshiNeko (Jan 15, 2013)

Inuhanyou said:


> only days after saying video games promote 'violence'



They were talking about video games with blood, gore, and violence. This one is just shooting inanimate targets


----------



## Bryan Paulsen (Jan 15, 2013)

spankdatbitch said:


> Shut the fuck up with the Strawman bullshit.You guys pull that crock out of your ass every time the tables get turned on you.We all know you guys only that flag when it's in your favor.



It's par the course with Utilitarians possessing anti-social personality traits, the majority of which happen to be Authoritarian Collectivists. Authoritarian Collectivists see no problem at all with a ruling class possessing special privileges, ie: access to firearms, protection, for the "common good". They are frequently the enemy of the _proletariat_ due to their shifting, unprincipled positions born of _appeals to emotion_, the _fallacy of equivocation_, or similar. This, in short, defines existences like _Cardboard Tube Knight_, who has systematically evaded any logical discussion of gun rights to this point when challenged.

Logic is a means to an end to them, and not to be particularly emphasized when found inconvenient. They, more than anyone, believe in _gennaion pseudos_, or the "noble lie", in order to achieve their ends. This is born of a decidedly theistic faith in the benevolence of the State to act in their self-interest.

The sooner you understand they are not interested in logic, the better. When their numbers reach critical mass, and they make it a point to gleefully strip your rights you have two choices:

#1) Bend over.

or

#2) _Molon labe_.

There is no negotiating with people that believe what's theirs is theirs, and what's yours is negotiable. They are not trying to negotiate with you, they are trying to tell you they can interfere with your self-ownership.


----------



## Mintaka (Jan 15, 2013)

TenshiNeko said:


> It's just a target shooting game. There are tons of those around. It's not a big deal.  Like an arcade game. It's not going to teach anybody how to shoot a real gun. Probably it's called "suitable for 4 and up" because they only shoot targets, not even people-shaped targets. They're not even shaped like little ducks.... No violence, no "splatting" of anything in any way. The NRA has just put some educational gun safety tips in it.


It's that the NRA has previously been shunting there responsibility for the shooting tragedies onto video game companies for making violent games.

Then they come up with this shit.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 15, 2013)

Bryan Paulsen said:


> It's par the course with Utilitarians possessing anti-social personality traits, the majority of which happen to be Authoritarian Collectivists. Authoritarian Collectivists see no problem at all with a ruling class possessing special privileges, ie: access to firearms, protection, for the "common good". They are frequently the enemy of the _proletariat_ due to their shifting, unprincipled positions born of _appeals to emotion_, the _fallacy of equivocation_, or similar. This, in short, defines existences like _Cardboard Tube Knight_, who has systematically evaded any logical discussion of gun rights to this point when challenged.
> 
> Logic is a means to an end to them, and not to be particularly emphasized when found inconvenient. They, more than anyone, believe in _gennaion pseudos_, or the "noble lie", in order to achieve their ends. This is born of a decidedly theistic faith in the benevolence of the State to act in their self-interest.
> 
> ...



No, it means more that the person in the argument actually responds to the argument *fucking posed to them.* If I say "we need to ban high capacity clips" and you go "Obama wants all the guns gone so his socialist regime can reign" that's not you answering the argument. That's not even the same page, that's not even true, Obama has said repeatedly that he doesn't want to revoke the second amendment. 

Likewise, your side brings up slippery slopes, which are another type of logical fallacy. 

"If they ban these guns what's to stop them from banning them all?"

I don't know, genius, what stopped them before? You can't have flame throwers or rocket launchers because someone banned them and yet they didn't keep slipping along and banning the rest of the guns.


----------



## Bryan Paulsen (Jan 15, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> No, it means more that the person in the argument actually responds to the argument *fucking posed to them.* If I say "we need to ban high capacity clips" and you go "Obama wants all the guns gone so his socialist regime can reign" that's not you answering the argument. That's not even the same page, that's not even true, Obama has said repeatedly that he doesn't want to revoke the second amendment.



Introduce a logical "need" to ban high capacity clips. Then, assuming you are capable of demonstrating such a logical "need", demonstrate how only the _proletariat_ should be culpable to such a "need", but not the State without unjustifiable hypocrisy.

Get to work. I want a step-by-step sequence wherein you are capable of divorcing the special privileges of the State from the _proletariat_. If you are capable of such a feat without hypocrisy, then I look forward to expounding on the importance of the _rule of law_, and the historical effects of countries that had governments not beholden to the same laws their people were.



> "If they ban these guns what's to stop them from banning them all?"
> 
> I don't know, genius, what stopped them before? You can't have flame throwers or rocket launchers because someone banned them and yet they didn't keep slipping along and banning the rest of the guns.



Rocket launchers, et al, can be forcibly divorced from any concept of self-defense due to collateral damage occurring even upon proper usage. Collateral damage, whether of life or property, would violate self-defense and qualify as unwarranted aggression. This provides logical grounds for regulation via the interference with the rights of others, not emotionally laden grounds as the assault rifle ban is based on, because it is not logically possible to argue usage of an assault rifle necessarily causes collateral damage. Similarly, it is impossible to argue that assault rifles do not qualify as an effective tool of self-defense, because aggressors are not always singular, eliminating any notion of a numerical quotient being relevant.

I had an argument with _LouDaGreat_ on here in which he said that if people can own any gun they want, then they should be able to own nukes. I forcibly ejected that argument (and can repeat it here, if you so desire) using a strict logical process.

I want to see pure, unadulterated logic to banning assault rifles. I'll give you a hint: if you introduce the term "need" again, you've already failed.

The regulation of society should be wholly dependent on an examination of the rights of individuals, and dedicated entirely to their protection. Any regulation that inhibits the exercise of said rights without logical support should be rightly rejected.


----------



## Lord Glacial (Jan 15, 2013)

And this is somehow shocking...kids today are playing Call of Duty, as well as many first person shooter. Sure is fun to have the target practice app...but seriously, nothing compared to the new Black Ops II game.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 15, 2013)

Bryan Paulsen said:


> Introduce a logical "need" to ban high capacity clips. Then, assuming you are capable of demonstrating such a logical "need", demonstrate how only the _proletariat_ should be culpable to such a "need", but not the State without unjustifiable hypocrisy.



You don't need a thirty round clip for home defense. Also automatic weapons have the same kind of collateral damage factor you were mentioning with rocket launchers. They spray and are usually meant for large groups (ie wars). 



Bryan Paulsen said:


> Get to work. I want a step-by-step sequence wherein you are capable of divorcing the special privileges of the State from the _proletariat_. If you are capable of such a feat without hypocrisy, then I look forward to expounding on the importance of the _rule of law_, and the historical effects of countries that had governments not beholden to the same laws their people were.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Most people polled want them banned, put it to a vote like a national election. Then ban the things that lose in the vote. I mean both the media and the people are against what you're supporting. People agree, generally, that guns shouldn't be banned. But they don't say the same for assault rifles. 

I don't need to step by step do the logic dance with you, you've done nothing but be illogical since you came in here. Saying "I need assault rifles..." is illogical.


----------



## Lady Hinata (Jan 15, 2013)

Wow. ​


----------



## Revolution (Jan 15, 2013)

Mist Puppet said:


> Duck Hunt > this game



you would know?


----------



## Gaawa-chan (Jan 15, 2013)

Hypocritical fuckwads.


----------



## Bryan Paulsen (Jan 16, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> You don't need a thirty round clip for home defense. Also automatic weapons have the same kind of collateral damage factor you were mentioning with rocket launchers. They spray and are usually meant for large groups (ie wars).



"Need" is superfluous due to relativistic considerations. It is not born of any logical consideration of the problem.

The argument that automatic weapons cause collateral damage in line with rocket launchers is the _fallacy of equivocation_. The nature of the ballistics involved are entirely different.



> Most people polled want them banned, put it to a vote like a national election. Then ban the things that lose in the vote. I mean both the media and the people are against what you're supporting. People agree, generally, that guns shouldn't be banned. But they don't say the same for assault rifles.



An _appeal to popularity_ does not form the core of any successful argument. Tyranny of the majority is precisely why the USA is not a democracy, but rather a constitutional republic.

The idea that rights can be voted away is abhorrent. It is the same intellectual position that allows for the sale of your fellow man into slavery, or the forfeiture of his rights should they be viewed as inconvenient to "the common good".

If you honestly believe that the correctness of an action should be determined solely by its popularity, then you have no intellectual (or moral) authority to assert any given action is correct.



> I don't need to step by step do the logic dance with you, you've done nothing but be illogical since you came in here. Saying "I need assault rifles..." is illogical.



Inserting the idea of "need" into ownership is both superfluous and illogical.

Asserting that ownership of an assault rifle is well within the parameters of ensuring one's self-defense, as part of securing one's general welfare, endemic to the responsibility of having self-ownership, stems from a logical understanding of rights.

Now come up with some logical arguments to defend your position, or run away. Again.


----------



## Griever (Jan 16, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> You don't need a thirty round clip for home defense. Also automatic weapons have the same kind of collateral damage factor you were mentioning with rocket launchers. They spray and are usually meant for large groups (ie wars).



It's good that we live in a country where we don't have to 'need' something in order to have it. And also people can use these guns for home defense if they so choose, there are many companies that make bullets that do not pierce though walls. though rifles of any kind are still a bit unwieldy for home defense thus why the handgun is preferred.   

Also magazine capacity; it really doesn't make a difference to people who have experience with guns, which can be gained pretty easily for anyone in America who cares to learn. 

It's a proven fact that these shooters take note of and specifically target gun-free zones, which makes magazine capacity even less relevant.  



> Most people polled want them banned, put it to a vote like a national election. Then ban the things that lose in the vote. I mean both the media and the people are against what you're supporting. People agree, generally, that guns shouldn't be banned. But they don't say the same for assault rifles.



That's because most people don't know what an assault rifle is, shame i always figured you where one of the people who did.




> Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
> 
> *Folding or telescoping stock
> *Pistol grip
> ...



You should know that so called "Assault Rifles" aren't the only kind of rifle that use a detachable magazine, and the rest is simply cosmetic and doesn't define an Assault weapon. They are simply vilifying the cosmetic appearance, and indeed that's all they can do, because _Real Assault Weapons_ are already illegal classified as Title II weapons.

"A Semi-automatic version of a Fully-automatic firearm" labeling them 'Assault weapons' in the first place is a misnomer, simply having the outer appearance doesn't mean it has the same function, actually function is ignored completely.


----------



## Roman (Jan 16, 2013)

Bryan Paulsen said:


> It's par the course with Utilitarians possessing anti-social personality traits, the majority of which happen to be Authoritarian Collectivists. Authoritarian Collectivists see no problem at all with a ruling class possessing special privileges, ie: access to firearms, protection, for the "common good". They are frequently the enemy of the _proletariat_ due to their shifting, unprincipled positions born of _appeals to emotion_, the _fallacy of equivocation_, or similar. This, in short, defines existences like _Cardboard Tube Knight_, who has systematically evaded any logical discussion of gun rights to this point when challenged.
> 
> Logic is a means to an end to them, and not to be particularly emphasized when found inconvenient. They, more than anyone, believe in _gennaion pseudos_, or the "noble lie", in order to achieve their ends. This is born of a decidedly theistic faith in the benevolence of the State to act in their self-interest.
> 
> ...



You just LOVE making generalizations about people, don't you?

Personally, CTK makes a strong point on the NRA's hypocrisy. They condemn violent video games, then come up with this program not at all long after where kids of at least 4 years of age (far below the minimum age for playing games like Max Payne and Black Ops) ACTUALLY hold a gun in real life. It's got educational tips, certainly, but if you think for a second and see what's wrong with the picture of condemning video games for making people murderous with their guns only to then teach them how to actually use one. Tell me how seeing this action as hypocritical is being an authoritarian collectivist? 

As for me, personally, I'd like to see no one having to live carrying a gun at all times as a result of a disingenuous belief that the US and all other govts will become dystopic with absolute certainty. That's what's actually stupid.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 16, 2013)

Griever said:


> It's good that we live in a country where we don't have to 'need' something in order to have it. And also people can use these guns for home defense if they so choose...



Sorry this is so full of bullshit that I'm scared to read the rest. People don't get to have the freedom to do some things, you shouldn't be able to choose to use weapons with thirty round clips for hunting and home defense. I mean you can't even choose when to hunt certain animals for fucks sake.


----------



## Griever (Jan 16, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Sorry this is so full of bullshit that I'm scared to read the rest. People don't get to have the freedom to do some things, you shouldn't be able to choose to use weapons with thirty round clips for hunting and home defense.



Oh yeah, because magazine capacity really makes a huge difference in hunting and home defense, the mechanism is still the same my friend. However, magazine capacity wasn't what i was referring to in that particular statement, which you would have known had you bothered to read further.



> I mean you can't even choose when to hunt certain animals for fucks sake.



To prevent driving species to extinction, that's neither here nor there and has nothing to do with anything.


----------



## Jeff (Jan 16, 2013)

I've encountered tons of 10 year olds and younger playing against/with me on Halo 3 throughout the years, not so much on CoD but I'd imagine there are some.

This leads me to not criticize the NRA entirely, but rather the parents or guardians that are allowing children access to iPhones and violent video games at a young age in the first place.  It didn't really have much of an influence on me (I used to play the shit out of Perfect Dark when I was 8 or 9), but why would a parent download violent games and knowingly allow a kid to play it?  Just keep them clean until they can grow up and make their own conscious choices in life.  Not saying video games are the root of the problem, but rather parenting is.


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Jan 16, 2013)

Freedan said:


> It's got educational tips, certainly, but if you think for a second and see what's wrong with the picture of condemning video games for making people murderous with their guns only to then teach them how to actually use one



That's perfectly consistent with the NRA's ethic of blaming violence on people and not the tools of violence.  Your means is not the same thing on as your motive.


----------



## Roman (Jan 16, 2013)

The Space Cowboy said:


> That's perfectly consistent with the NRA's ethic of blaming violence on people and not the tools of violence.  Your means is not the same thing on as your motive.



If they blame people for violence, they should not be blaming video games in the first place. So no, it's not consistent at all.


----------



## Suzuku (Jan 16, 2013)

*New NRA Ad Targets Obama's Kids*



> A video released by the National Rifle Association on Tuesday sharply criticizes President Obama for his skepticism about placing armed guards in schools, calling the president an "elitist hypocrite" for allowing the Secret Service to protect his daughters.
> 
> "Are the president's kids more important than yours?" the ad asks. "Then why is he skeptical about putting armed security in our schools when his kids are protected by armed guards at their school?"
> 
> ...




[YOUTUBE]miSjgv1MH7s[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Burke (Jan 16, 2013)

This president. This specific president is doing everything wrong.


----------



## Mider T (Jan 16, 2013)

Releasing this before he even made his statements makes them seem like rats scurrying under a heated pot.


----------



## Suzuku (Jan 16, 2013)

*President Obama Unveils New Gun Control Laws*



> WASHINGTON -- In a bold and potentially historic attempt to stem the increase in mass gun violence, President Barack Obama unveiled on Wednesday the most sweeping effort at gun control policy reform in a generation.
> 
> The proposal, which comes at the end of a month-long review process spearheaded by Vice President Joe Biden, is broken down into four key subsections: law enforcement, the availability of dangerous firearms and ammunition, school safety and mental health.
> 
> ...


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 16, 2013)

I saw this. Absolutely desperate of them.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Jan 16, 2013)

> ""Whoever thinks the ad is about President Obama's daughters are missing the point completely or they're trying to change the subject," said a spokesman.



Wait, what ?

Americans should be offended at this


----------



## Mider T (Jan 16, 2013)

I'm not seeing a problem with this, the guns I own aren't affected by any of it.

EDIT: And the crazies in public office are already at it


----------



## Bender (Jan 16, 2013)

lol 

attention whoring retarded stooges the whole lot of them.


----------



## Mider T (Jan 16, 2013)

What's this I smell?  Could it be...beef?


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 16, 2013)

Some of these people are so fucking ignorant "We don't wanna be like Europe, we believe in freedom". Invoking God too...


----------



## Toroxus (Jan 16, 2013)

> "You can overpower the extremists with intelligence and with reason and with common sense."


Let me know how that works out when extremists break into your house to kill you.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Jan 16, 2013)

> Meet the NRA's Board of Directors
> Tom Selleck, Ted Nugent, and Karl Malone are just some of the high-caliber individuals who call the shots at the National Rifle Association.
> ?By Dave Gilson | Wed Jan. 16, 2013 3:06 AM PST
> 57
> ...


----------



## Surreal (Jan 16, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Some of these people are so fucking ignorant "We don't wanna be like Europe, we believe in freedom". Invoking God too...



We are godless and oppressed? I must have missed the memo.


----------



## GrandLordAtos (Jan 16, 2013)

Surreal said:


> We are godless and oppressed? I must have missed the memo.



Don't you know?  God only blesses MURICA and favors us because of our guns! It's in the bible, ya damn commie!

Oh man...the shame I have for my own country right now. Between all this, and hearing that some people are actually dense and inconsiderate enough to believe Sandy Hook was a government conspiracy, it makes me want to leave for Canada. Or England. Or...anywhere but here. 

Hrm...England does have better tea...


----------



## Bryan Paulsen (Jan 16, 2013)

Freedan said:


> You just LOVE making generalizations about people, don't you?





The conclusions are drawn heavily from that study. Anti-social personality traits predict Utilitarian responses to moral dilemmas.

People with anti-social personality traits demonstrate a strong need for control, that is, Authoritarianism. Such a conclusion can be more easily understood here:

 (note that Authoritarianism in general is considered "right wing" regardless of political affiliation, while Libertarianism is "left wing")

Those same individuals, due to the perceived gain from allowing for the forfeiture of the rights of others for "the common good", namely Utilitarianism, are most commonly Collectivists when there is an existent authority they must submit to, ie: government.



You'll note that the strongest believers in pure democracy, as _Cardboard Tube Knight_ demonstrated, are Utilitarians of a Machiavellian nature.

These are individuals that heavily endorse the, "What's mine is mine, and what's yours is negotiable" logic when dealing with their fellow man. They do not entertain any discussion of rights.



> Tell me how seeing this action as hypocritical is being an authoritarian collectivist?



What I responded to was precisely focused on the abuse of logic demonstrated by Authoritarian Collectivists, specifically when it is found inconvenient to them, and using it when it happens to be advantageous. Revisit what I responded to if this is lost on you, as I suspect it is.



> As for me, personally, I'd like to see no one having to live carrying a gun at all times as a result of a disingenuous belief that the US and all other govts will become dystopic with absolute certainty. That's what's actually stupid.



Even in states with lax gun laws and open carry plenty of people don't carry _now_, nor do they have to. There's no compulsion regarding ownership/possession of firearms, as there shouldn't be. Coercion is unethical.

Now, as for whether "absolute certainty" is required in order to take prophylactic courses of action, that's absurd. Obtaining implements of self-defense stems from self-ownership, and has little to do with whether the State will ultimately try to subvert you.

Unfortunately, as the individual that coined the term "democide" will attest:  (note: this entire site is recommended reading for anyone interested in political science, and human rights)

concentration of power is the greatest threat to human lives on the face of the Earth. He placed emphasis on "liberal democracies" being a marked improvement, but in his Q&A cited significant concern over the concentration of power in the federal government as a strong indicator of a future threat. This was a conclusion born of an exhaustive study of the deaths inflicted on people by the government, and is therefore worth taking seriously.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 16, 2013)

Griever said:


> Oh yeah, because magazine capacity really makes a huge difference in hunting and home defense, the mechanism is still the same my friend. However, magazine capacity wasn't what i was referring to in that particular statement, which you would have known had you bothered to read further.


Doesn't matter, you're on the side of wasted logic. There's not a good argument for what you're saying, most sensible people see that. 




Griever said:


> To prevent driving species to extinction, that's neither here nor there and has nothing to do with anything.



And yet, regulating guns to keep people from easily gaining access to them who might kill other people is set below protecting wildlife. 



The Space Cowboy said:


> That's perfectly consistent with the NRA's ethic of blaming violence on people and not the tools of violence.  Your means is not the same thing on as your motive.



Tools aren't to blame for murders, but there's no reason to make tools made to kill people wholesale available in case a murderer wants to use them.


----------



## Hand Banana (Jan 16, 2013)

If we not allow guns to be in the hands of blacks and whites, death rates will decrease drastically.


----------



## Bryan Paulsen (Jan 16, 2013)

Hand Banana said:


> If we not allow guns to be in the hands of blacks and whites, death rates will decrease drastically.



Ironically, racism was quite often tied into historic gun control efforts. The idea that blacks weren't good enough to own them, but that whites were responsible enough. Of course, to modern sensibilities, this sounds absurd.

Nowadays, instead of racism, we have classism. Advocates of class warfare assert that the _proletariat_ aren't good enough for them, but the State is.

Same bigots, different era in time.


----------



## Hand Banana (Jan 16, 2013)

Bryan Paulsen said:


> Ironically, racism was quite often tied into historic gun control efforts. The idea that blacks weren't good enough to own them, but that whites were responsible enough. Of course, to modern sensibilities, this sounds absurd.
> 
> Nowadays, instead of racism, we have classism. Advocates of class warfare assert that the _proletariat_ aren't good enough for them, but the State is.
> 
> Same bigots, different era in time.



Native Americans would be our biggest threat Running around screaming, "Get Tomahawked!"


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 16, 2013)

What is with this crazy talk? Seriously, it's like the people against this are a bunch of lunatics. The issue isn't nor was it ever, taking away gun rights completely, but the fact that there needs to be some massive reform made and many guns simply should not be sold to civilians.


----------



## hadou (Jan 16, 2013)

Republicans "should donate body parts; I hear they're looking for assholes."


----------



## Bryan Paulsen (Jan 16, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> What is with this crazy talk? Seriously, it's like the people against this are a bunch of lunatics. The issue isn't nor was it ever, taking away gun rights completely, but the fact that there needs to be some massive reform made and many guns simply should not be sold to civilians.



#1) Demonstrate logical cause for the abrogation of the right of self-defense. "Gun rights" are only an extension of the right of self-defense, that in turn stems from the principle of self-ownership.

#2) Demonstrate how regulating guns that do not qualify as unwarranted aggression (via implicit collateral damage, ie: explosions) upholds gun rights.

#3) Explain why civilians, the _proletariat_, are not good enough for these guns, but the State is. Do so without incorporating relativism, hypocrisy, or class warfare.

Good luck. I've already done the task, and I'm waiting for one of the gun control advocates to get off their ass and try to use logic to entrench their position.


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Jan 16, 2013)

Freedan said:


> If they blame people for violence, they should not be blaming video games in the first place. So no, it's not consistent at all.



Their logic is internally consistent with the ethic of placing responsibility for shootings on the shooter and not the weapon.  People choose to play video games, and video games try to effect their behavior by design--so do films.  Stop trying to find hypocrisy where there is none, and find a better way to assail their position.  You could try the public safety angle.

Here is the NRA app game-play.  Looks pretty ho-hum and boring.  More hand-eye coordination and reaction training than anything else.


*Spoiler*: __ 



[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mR9JI89s24M[/YOUTUBE]




Here is the Modern Warfare II Mission:  No Russian

*Spoiler*: __ 



[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9ps68FuJKU[/YOUTUBE]



In one you shoot up at pop up targets, in the other you run through an airport of civilians committing heinous murder.  In one, violence against simulated humans in a semi-realistic environment is not an option.  In the other, it's practically a requirement.

One of these games has sold over 4.7 million copies and strives for a sort of realism.


----------



## Griever (Jan 16, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Doesn't matter, you're on the side of wasted logic. There's not a good argument for what you're saying, most sensible people see that.



Not a sensible argument for what?. The fact that companies make bullets that don't pierce walls?. Or that so called "assault weapons" that civilians are legally allowed to own are not Title II weapons?. Or are referring to the fact that so called "assault weapons" are simply cosmetic?. 

Or are you still on about magazine capacity?. I've never heard such a pointless argument, regardless of how many bullets the magazine holds, the gun itself is still a semi-auto firearm. Magazine capacity has nothing to do with hunting or home defense. 



> And yet, regulating guns to keep people from easily gaining access to them who might kill other people is set below protecting wildlife.



Get off this topic, it's asinine to compare the two.


----------



## The Pink Ninja (Jan 16, 2013)

> *Rick Perry?s Solution To Gun Violence: ?Pray For Our Children?*
> 
> This afternoon, after watching President Obama?s speech on preventing gun violence, Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) dismissed the administration?s proposals and suggested that only prayer can lower gun crime rates. Perry said Obama?s remarks ?disgust? him and that, instead of responding to violence with new policies, we should ?pray for our children.?
> 
> ...


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Jan 16, 2013)

*President asks Congress for expanded background checks*



> WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama is asking Congress to expand background checks on gun buyers to include private sales and is using his executive authority to increase the information available in data banks in the background check system. The White House calls background checks the most efficient and effective way to keep guns away from dangerous individuals.
> 
> Obama wants Congress to close loopholes that permit private gun transactions to occur without background checks. The White House says nearly 40 percent of gun sales are conducted by private individuals now exempt from checking the backgrounds of buyers.
> 
> Obama is also ordering federal agencies to make "relevant data" available to the federal background check system and to remove barriers that might prevent states from providing information, particularly mental health data, for background checks.





I actually agree with the Whitehouse on this one and I usually take the side of the NRA and the pro-gunners.  Expanded background checks and information sharing between federal agencies is a reasonable and constitutionally acceptable (I reserve the right to be wrong) firearms control measure.

Although I'd probably say you should leave the check-less Private Party sale option open for qualifying long guns to encourage the use, manufacture, sale and trade of long guns that aren't Assault Rifles.


----------



## The Pink Ninja (Jan 16, 2013)

> *Meet The Republicans Who Want To Impeach Obama Over Gun Regulations*
> 
> Republicans and pro-gun advocates are outraged over President Obama’s 23 executive orders to curb gun violence in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre. Though executive orders have always been a standard element of the presidency, invocations of dictators like Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin and Saddam Hussein are becoming commonplace in the right-wing blogosphere. In reality, Obama has issued fewer executive orders than any other American president in the last century. The executive orders signed today focus on strengthening background checks, making it easier for law enforcement to track guns used in crimes, and ending the freeze on gun research.
> Regardless of the facts, the movement to impeach Obama over these executive actions is spreading from fringe conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones and taking hold among lawmakers and Republican activists. Here are five people calling for Obama’s impeachment:





Existential threat to the nation.

Not at all like using impeachments wildly and for partisan purposes.


----------



## The Pink Ninja (Jan 16, 2013)




----------



## Toroxus (Jan 16, 2013)

I've now learned that "thinkprogress.org" is biased bullshit.


----------



## The Pink Ninja (Jan 16, 2013)

I don't totally disagree, hence why I don't make threads with them as the primary source.

But as an in thread source? Eh

It's also not untrue. Perry did say something that stupid, the GOP really are already starting up the partisan impeachment bullshit machine and someone really did compare him to Saddam.


----------



## navy (Jan 16, 2013)

Toroxus said:


> I've now learned that "thinkprogress.org" is biased bullshit.



Sherlock Holmes right here. 


Thinkprogress is literally a progressive blog.


----------



## Bender (Jan 16, 2013)

> The National Rifle Association blasted out an urgent fundraising appeal by Executive Director Wayne LaPierre Tuesday night, hours ahead of President Barack Obama's announcement of 23 executive actions on gun control.
> 
> "I warned you this day was coming and now it?s here," LaPierre wrote. "This is the fight of the century and I need you on board with NRA now more than ever. My strength, and the strength of our entire NRA organization comes from you and your strong commitment to our membership. I need you in our corner TODAY.?
> 
> ...





What do the NRA and Tea Party group have in common? They think they run this country. We have some news for them. Also they're described in two words: Dumb cunts


----------



## drache (Jan 16, 2013)

the NRA is being exceedingly foolish and reckless right now but then again I wouldn't be sad to see it disappear along with teh republican party


----------



## Bender (Jan 16, 2013)

Surreal said:


> We are godless and oppressed? I must have missed the memo.



Agreed




While we're at it lets use prayer to help those who are dying of cancer, people starving in Africa, and the people that got fucked over by hurricane Sandy. 










[YOUTUBE]FopyRHHlt3M[/YOUTUBE]



Overall, I'm just dumbfounded by all the goddamn idiocy in this country.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 16, 2013)

The Space Cowboy said:


> Their logic is internally consistent with the ethic of placing responsibility for shootings on the shooter and not the weapon.  People choose to play video games, and video games try to effect their behavior by design--so do films.  Stop trying to find hypocrisy where there is none, and find a better way to assail their position.  You could try the public safety angle.
> 
> Here is the NRA app game-play.  Looks pretty ho-hum and boring.  More hand-eye coordination and reaction training than anything else.
> 
> ...



The NRA was scapegoating. And they placed blame on games and movies quite specifically, refusing to take any part of responsibility for themselves FYI, not exactly simply holding the individual responsible. They felt the heat and started pointing fingers.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 16, 2013)

You're overusing the image macros...


----------



## Bender (Jan 16, 2013)

^

I've been gone all day so a lot of this kinda shocking. Thus the image macros.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 16, 2013)

I've seen very little balance in the defensive side of this argument. Seriously, every person they get on the airwaves to discuss it has turned out to be some conspiracy theorist nutjob or just a plain fearmonger. The NRA in particular is looking more and more extreme the more they try to rail against Obama. It is kinda funny, this is exactly what these gun nuts wanted though, an excuse to hate Obama on the issue and it shows.


----------



## Bender (Jan 16, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> I've seen very little balance in the defensive side of this argument. Seriously, every person they get on the airwaves to discuss it has turned out to be some conspiracy theorist nutjob or just a plain fearmonger. The NRA in particular is looking more and more extreme the more they try to rail against Obama. It is kinda funny, this is exactly what these gun nuts wanted though, an excuse to hate Obama on the issue and it shows.



Honestly the only realistic, semi-coherent passive gun person is some people I've talked to on this forum. It's absolutely pathetic how barely one person on the airwave can make a credible argument.


----------



## Mizura (Jan 16, 2013)

Griever said:


> This video shows the difference between a legal "Assault Rifle" and the true military Grade Assault Weapons.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Wow, thanks a lot for posting that info. I learned a lot about guns, though frankly, now I'm more convinced than ever that I never want to move to the U.S. D:


----------



## Bender (Jan 16, 2013)

Mizura said:


> Wow, thanks a lot for posting that info. I learned a lot about guns, though frankly, now I'm more convinced than ever that I never want to move to the U.S. D:



Then we'll never be able to start a relationship if you don't.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 17, 2013)

Mizura said:


> Wow, thanks a lot for posting that info. I learned a lot about guns, though frankly, now I'm more convinced than ever that I never want to move to the U.S. D:



That's the disconnect the rest of the world a lot of gun collectors have. Seriously, showing a video of a gun releasing that many rounds and saying "it's not that bad", is no wonder why we have a stereotype of gun-toting maniacs.


----------



## roninmedia (Jan 17, 2013)

'Unconstitutional' gun control laws won't be enforced


Some key statements.


> *Sheriff Tim Mueller of Linn County, Oregon states he won't enforce any federal regulation offending the constitutional rights of my citizens or permit federal officers to come to his county to enforce such laws*
> 
> *Sheriff Denny Peyman of Jackson County, Kentucky told residents in a town hall meeting that the sheriff has more power than the federal government but however would enforce laws approved by Congress.*
> 
> *Republican Rep. Steve Toth of Texas says "At some point there needs to be a showdown between the states and the federal government over the Supremacy Clause. It is our responsibility to push back when those laws are infringed by King Obama."*


----------



## drache (Jan 17, 2013)

^

thus proving that some people are just plain stupid


----------



## Mizura (Jan 17, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> That's the disconnect the rest of the world a lot of gun collectors have. Seriously, showing a video of a gun releasing that many rounds and saying "it's not that bad", is no wonder why we have a stereotype of gun-toting maniacs.


It's not just that. Those watermelons blew up like friggin' balloons! Even if a robber enters my house, I would not want to see his head blow off in a similar manner. D: Surely there are less lethal ways to protect oneself?


----------



## Stalin (Jan 17, 2013)

You still get to keep your guns under gun control laws, so they're still constitutional.


----------



## Roman (Jan 17, 2013)

Mizura said:


> Wow, thanks a lot for posting that info. I learned a lot about guns, though frankly, now I'm more convinced than ever that I never want to move to the U.S. D:



And that gun restrictions need to be passed more than ever. The way I see it, at least, these current gun restrictions need to be passed as a first step to curb the gun culture in the US, getting people from thinking assault rifles aren't that bad, as is indicated in the videos, to realizing that any gun, no matter how powerful, can still kill someone.

To prove this, I can say that the gun in the second video shot a handgun just to show it isn't as powerful as all the other hunting rifles. If it's not all that bad, why do the vast majority of gun-related murders involve handguns?


----------



## Hatifnatten (Jan 17, 2013)

NU GUN IN MAH MURIKA?

DEY TOOK UR GOONS


----------



## Roman (Jan 17, 2013)




----------



## neko-sennin (Jan 17, 2013)

Mist Puppet said:


> Duck Hunt > this game



Dude, if there's anything in the history of video gaming that could inspire gun violence, it's that damn dog from Duck Hunt.


----------



## Amatsu (Jan 17, 2013)

neko-sennin said:


> Dude, if there's anything in the history of video gaming that could inspire gun violence, it's that damn dog from Duck Hunt.



"Dear it's time to walk the dog"
"Not now! I'm playing Duck Hunt!"
"Can't you hear him scratching at the door? He really wants out."
"And I really want to beat this because I swear if I see that dog laughing at me one more time someone's going behind the fucking shed."


----------



## ImperatorMortis (Jan 17, 2013)

Just.. Ugh...


----------



## Roman (Jan 17, 2013)

Bryan Paulsen said:


> The conclusions are drawn heavily from that study. Anti-social personality traits predict Utilitarian responses to moral dilemmas.
> 
> People with anti-social personality traits demonstrate a strong need for control, that is, Authoritarianism. Such a conclusion can be more easily understood here:
> 
> ...



Like I said. You simply love to make generalizations.



Bryan Paulsen said:


> What I responded to was precisely focused on the abuse of logic demonstrated by Authoritarian Collectivists, specifically when it is found inconvenient to them, and using it when it happens to be advantageous. Revisit what I responded to if this is lost on you, as I suspect it is.



My issue is you're accusing someone, CTK specifically and I'm about 55% sure you're also targeting anyone who's pro-gun control, of something they're not even guilty of. We're not advocating class superiority or ownership of guns against middle and lower classes. We're advocating an indiscriminate gun control. On that note, aren't you also finding the argument favoring gun control inconvenient to you and contesting it as if you have more authority over the logic of things than the opposite side of the debate?



Bryan Paulsen said:


> Even in states with lax gun laws and open carry plenty of people don't carry _now_, nor do they have to. There's no compulsion regarding ownership/possession of firearms, as there shouldn't be. Coercion is unethical.
> 
> Now, as for whether "absolute certainty" is required in order to take prophylactic courses of action, that's absurd. Obtaining implements of self-defense stems from self-ownership, and has little to do with whether the State will ultimately try to subvert you.



The most common argument against gun control is the idea that the US will turn into a tyrannical dictatorship with absolute certainty if people are stripped of their so called second amendment rights. Self defense is one thing, even tho tools which kill people being used for defense is of a logic that entirely escapes me, but believing in the unbelievable and reacting to it in the extent of becoming willing to kill for it is something else. Something far more common in the middle-ages, to be specific.

With that said, the fact remains an excessively large amount of murder is related to the liberal access to firearms, and the US also sees far more of that than countries without guns. You can call it the need for self-ownership, but I don't see the risk of not having a gun when no one is allowed to carry one to begin with. And by no one I mean NO ONE. Upper, middle, lower classes, police officers, whatever you can think of outside of the armed forces, no one can carry guns. You see it in the UK and in Japan, and both countries sees a tiny fraction of murder that the US does.



Bryan Paulsen said:


> Unfortunately, as the individual that coined the term "democide" will attest:  (note: this entire site is recommended reading for anyone interested in political science, and human rights)
> 
> concentration of power is the greatest threat to human lives on the face of the Earth. He placed emphasis on "liberal democracies" being a marked improvement, but in his Q&A cited significant concern over the concentration of power in the federal government as a strong indicator of a future threat. This was a conclusion born of an exhaustive study of the deaths inflicted on people by the government, and is therefore worth taking seriously.



Pray tell how people will defend themselves from an armed take over of society by the govt with assault rifles which Greiver so kindly demonstrated aren't as effective as anyone is making them out to be? I know the US carries innocents off to Guantanamo and has stuff like the NDAA. How is guns stopping that? You don't see that in countries where guns are outlawed to civilians.



The Space Cowboy said:


> Their logic is internally consistent with the ethic of placing responsibility for shootings on the shooter and not the weapon.  People choose to play video games, and video games try to effect their behavior by design--so do films.  Stop trying to find hypocrisy where there is none, and find a better way to assail their position.  You could try the public safety angle.



People choose to carry guns, tools made specifically to kill that give people a sense of power over other people's lives, tools they use to inspire fear into others so that they will not mess with them. That is already far more dangerous than any video game. I'm not searching for hypocrisy where there's none. You're the one not seeing it in the first place.

Besides, the NRA didn't condemn people who choose to play video games. They blamed video games themselves for making people violent.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 17, 2013)

It's amazing how people are freaking out over this. Seriously, where was this outrage when we passed the Patriot Act? Or when Congress let Bush declare war? Or the NDAA? These nutjobs are so ignorant that they do not understand that most of history's dictatorships they cite arose from manipulation of internal politics, not armed takeover! Also, a civilian militia would do jack shit too, you're not gonna fend off the military so get over that delusion.


----------



## LouDAgreat (Jan 17, 2013)

Bryan Paulson said:
			
		

> #1) Demonstrate logical cause for the abrogation of the right of self-defense. "Gun rights" are only an extension of the right of self-defense, that in turn stems from the principle of self-ownership.



Assault weapons and semi-automatics go beyond self defense into being purely offensive.They were designed to inflict as much damage to multiple targets as possible. That's not defense for killing a burglar, or another gunmen.Those weapons go above and beyond the stated purpose of dense. Put the development of assault weapons and the second amendment into context please. 



			
				Bryan Paulson said:
			
		

> #2) Demonstrate how regulating guns that do not qualify as unwarranted aggression (via implicit collateral damage, ie: explosions) upholds gun rights.



Regulating guns for the safety of civilians trumps any right to guns, regardless what a piece of paper written in 1787 says. There are rights that every human being is naturally ordained with... owning a fucking gun is not one of them. 



			
				Bryan Paulson said:
			
		

> #3) Explain why civilians, the proletariat, are not good enough for these guns, but the State is. Do so without incorporating relativism, hypocrisy, or class warfare.



The state is an organized collection of democratically elected citizens with the authority and responsibility to protect/defend the society as well as create/organize institutions for the advancement of the quality of life for the people. Being the state has the responsibility to protect a wide area of soil against foreign enemies, and even domestic incursions, it must maintain advanced technologies to deter any threats. Civilians do not need those same advanced technologies to defend themselves. Millions of people living in proximity to one another with Ak-47s, m-16s and other high powered assualt rifles, creates more problems than good.




> Good luck. I've already done the task, and I'm waiting for one of the gun control advocates to get off their ass and try to use logic to entrench their position.



You haven't tried hard enough. Bryan, for all your seemingly sophisticated logical reasoning and wording, in the end your logic is non existent. Your just a braindead extremist.


----------



## Roman (Jan 17, 2013)

LouDAgreat said:


> Regulating guns for the safety of civilians trumps any right to guns, regardless what a piece of paper written in 1787 says. There are rights that every human being is naturally ordained with... owning a fucking gun is not one of them.



I couldn't have said it better myself. Excellent.



LouDAgreat said:


> The state is an organized collection of democratically elected citizens with the authority and responsibility to protect/defend the society as well as create/organize institutions for the advancement of the quality of life for the people. Being the state has the responsibility to protect a wide area of soil against foreign enemies, and even domestic incursions, it must maintain advanced technologies to deter any threats. Civilians do not need those same advanced technologies to defend themselves. Millions of people living in proximity to one another with Ak-47s, m-16s and other high powered assualt rifles, creates more problems than good.



Exactly what I said to Superrazien in this thread or another. A govt's purpose is to protect its people, not give its people the means to defend themselves and tell them the only ones they can rely on for defense is themselves because if they don't have that, the govt will turn on them. When the govt is protecting the people, there is no need especially for guns like AKs and Winchesters for self-defense. That's stupidity and overkill.


----------



## igeku somrazunta (Jan 17, 2013)

GrandLordAtos said:


> Don't you know?  God only blesses MURICA and favors us because of our guns! It's in the bible, ya damn commie!
> 
> Oh man...the shame I have for my own country right now. Between all this, and hearing that some people are actually dense and inconsiderate enough to believe Sandy Hook was a government conspiracy, it makes me want to leave for Canada. Or England. Or...anywhere but here.
> 
> Hrm...England does have better tea...



yeah but england has fakinghigh rate of violence
roughly 3,000 out of every 100,000 people have some act of violence committed against them there to americas 500 out of 100,000 the only difference is theirs isnt committed with fire-arms since they banned them :3
seems to have worked out well.
also seto, when bush declared war?????
LOL
the only thing he fucked up there was  that he was too ambitious and decided to assume they had WMD's because some smartass suggested the possibility in an earlier debate. they had been breaking UN sanctions left and right and the UN guys were being too much of pussies to send in nato to do their jobs, so as the main super power of the world at the time we stepped up to do our fucking job since nato wasnt doing the job delegated to them. since originally it's always been the world super pwoers who have solved smaller conflicts from escalating. however we decided to make that everyone's job since that's fair butit seems they tended to be pussies.
and if you don't think we should have gone to war at all you're the nut-job. allow me to tell you at least one thing. breaking sanctions over human rights. that alone was the main reason we needed to stop the Axis in WWII


----------



## Nemesis (Jan 17, 2013)

^ Again not true the whole article which shows what you are sprouting was a one off year that included the London Riots.  It was spun by the daily mail to say how "britain went soft" when infact the response to the riots itself was disproportionately harsh.

Apart from that one year blip Violent crime in the UK is going down fast and is lower than what it was since records were first really kept in the 1970s.


----------



## TheCupOfBrew (Jan 17, 2013)

Gun regulations are counter productive.


----------



## Smiley (Jan 17, 2013)

> The system will also help flag customers who buy large amounts of ammo.



This has nothing to do with trying to stop school shootings. You can kill 20 people twice with only one box. This is just a way of keeping tabs on people who shoot recreationally or as a practice. The only purpose of this law is to increase government power and any information they snoop out will eventually help them disarm their new royal subjects.


----------



## Bungee Gum (Jan 17, 2013)

Smiley said:


> This has nothing to do with trying to stop school shootings. You can kill 20 people twice with only one box. This is just a way of keeping tabs on people who shoot recreationally or as a practice. The only purpose of this law is to increase government power and eventually help them disarm their new royal subjects.



Being rich and powerful isn't enough, now we need to kill all our family and friends


----------



## the box (Jan 17, 2013)

Nemesis said:


> ^ Again not true the whole article which shows what you are sprouting was a one off year that included the London Riots.  It was spun by the daily mail to say how "britain went soft" when infact the response to the riots itself was disproportionately harsh.
> 
> Apart from that one year blip *Violent crime in the UK is going down fast and is lower than what it was since records were first really kept in the 1970s.*



irrelevant as violent crime is higher there than in gun america


----------



## Roman (Jan 17, 2013)

igeku somrazunta said:


> yeah but england has fakinghigh rate of violence
> roughly 3,000 out of every 100,000 people have some act of violence committed against them there to americas 500 out of 100,000 the only difference is theirs isnt committed with fire-arms since they banned them :3
> seems to have worked out well.
> also seto, when bush declared war?????
> ...


----------



## Bender (Jan 17, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> It's amazing how people are freaking out over this.



An example of the average insensitive anti-gun laws advocate:


----------



## Bender (Jan 17, 2013)

*Gun Found In Seven-Year-Old's Backpack At Wave Preparatory Elementary School In Queen*



> A loaded handgun was uncovered inside a backpack belonging to a seven-year-old boy at a Queens elementary school Thursday.
> 
> The New York Post reports a .22-caliber handgun was found inside the backpack at Wave Prepatory Elementary School in Far Rockaway.
> 
> ...







I'm sure that this makes the NRA very happy.


----------



## PureWIN (Jan 17, 2013)

"If a shooter came to that school, that 7 year-old would've shot him dead. "

-NRA


----------



## raizen28 (Jan 17, 2013)

Gonna start putting Automatic gun turrets from Turok


----------



## LesExit (Jan 17, 2013)

Wow....see whats also really concerning me is the parents of this child o.o I'm assuming he go it because of them. A child should not be able to find a gun if a parent owns one in the house. 

Anyways I'm glad that nothing bad happened. What was going on in the mind of that 7  year old??


----------



## SoleAccord (Jan 17, 2013)

Jesus Christ man .....


----------



## Mintaka (Jan 17, 2013)

Obviously this child played to many violent video games.  ~NRA


----------



## Bryan Paulsen (Jan 17, 2013)

LouDAgreat said:


> Assault weapons and semi-automatics go beyond self defense into being purely offensive.They were designed to inflict as much damage to multiple targets as possible. That's not defense for killing a burglar, or another gunmen.Those weapons go above and beyond the stated purpose of dense. Put the development of assault weapons and the second amendment into context please.



They are only offensive when used offensively. Self-defense doesn't always occur against singular targets.

Efficiency in their application of defense does not form a criticism. Only focusing on a usage that is _aggressive_ (offensive), and therefore unethical, does not qualify as a criticism of their ownership. There are already laws against the aggressive usage of *any* weapon.

You have failed, in multiple threads now, to put together a coherent criticism of owning them. You have failed, multiple threads now, to put together an argument eliminating _defensive usage_.



> Regulating guns for the safety of civilians trumps any right to guns, regardless what a piece of paper written in 1787 says. There are rights that every human being is naturally ordained with... owning a fucking gun is not one of them.



"Public safety" is a relativistic, innocuous consideration without any tangible logical basis.

Individual rights, on the other hand, are based on _a priori_ considerations, like self-ownership. Self-defense is a consequence of self-ownership, and ownership of tools of self-defense falls under the right of self-defense.



> The state is an organized collection of democratically elected citizens with the authority and responsibility to protect/defend the society as well as create/organize institutions for the advancement of the quality of life for the people. Being the state has the responsibility to protect a wide area of soil against foreign enemies, and even domestic incursions, it must maintain advanced technologies to deter any threats. Civilians do not need those same advanced technologies to defend themselves. Millions of people living in proximity to one another with Ak-47s, m-16s and other high powered assualt rifles, creates more problems than good.



As I have previously demonstrated to you: the State is not responsible for personal defense.

The Supreme Court and Appellate Courts support my position. You called it a "philosophical error" on their part. When reality, and logic, contradicts your position it is usually suggested you revisit your premise, and establish a different conclusion.

In short, you are wrong, and your argument against access to efficient weaponry, resting on the responsibility of the State for protection, is void and without merit.



> You haven't tried hard enough. Bryan, for all your seemingly sophisticated logical reasoning and wording, in the end your logic is non existent. Your just a braindead extremist.



Relativism doesn't constitute a logical argument, Lou. Get your ass back to work.


----------



## Enclave (Jan 17, 2013)

What fine parents, arming their child so he can protect his classmates in the event of a shooter showing up at their school. - NRA


----------



## Jeff (Jan 17, 2013)

For all we know, the backpack concealed other weapons.  A spiral notebook could have its metal binder removed and fastened into a stabbing instrument.  A pencil can sever an artery causing the victim to go into cardiac arrest.  And those wooden rulers...oh boy, don't get me started about those wooden rulers.  And no one is banning them.

- NRA


----------



## Bryan Paulsen (Jan 17, 2013)

Freedan said:


> My issue is you're accusing someone, CTK specifically and I'm about 55% sure you're also targeting anyone who's pro-gun control, of something they're not even guilty of. We're not advocating class superiority or ownership of guns against middle and lower classes. We're advocating an indiscriminate gun control. On that note, aren't you also finding the argument favoring gun control inconvenient to you and contesting it as if you have more authority over the logic of things than the opposite side of the debate?



CTK is most definitely guilty of it. A large number of gun control advocates are as well.

The exception are gun control advocates that think the State shouldn't own/have easy access to guns, either, and that *nobody* should own them. Those are much more rare, and as United States gun control advocates go, basically non-existent. If you are of the opinion that _nobody_ should own guns, that's at least an intellectually consistent position to adhere to.



> The most common argument against gun control is the idea that the US will turn into a tyrannical dictatorship with absolute certainty if people are stripped of their so called second amendment rights. Self defense is one thing, even tho tools which kill people being used for defense is of a logic that entirely escapes me, but believing in the unbelievable and reacting to it in the extent of becoming willing to kill for it is something else. Something far more common in the middle-ages, to be specific.



It doesn't have to be absolute certainty. Anyone with even a nominal study of history knows that there is a _chance_, and just a _chance_ is sufficient to support self-defense against State intrusion.

The logic isn't that remarkable. Before guns, there were swords, daggers, et al. People have used weaponry with the designed intent to kill in self-defense for millenia.

In medieval times kings often kept the peasantry from owning their own swords, etc. Those in power always wish to maintain a completely monopoly on force. Unless you are that monopoly under no circumstances should you rule out viable tools for self-defense.



> With that said, the fact remains an excessively large amount of murder is related to the liberal access to firearms, and the US also sees far more of that than countries without guns. You can call it the need for self-ownership, but I don't see the risk of not having a gun when no one is allowed to carry one to begin with. And by no one I mean NO ONE. Upper, middle, lower classes, police officers, whatever you can think of outside of the armed forces, no one can carry guns. You see it in the UK and in Japan, and both countries sees a tiny fraction of murder that the US does.



Self-ownership isn't a need, it is a principle, it is a fact that can be verified by yourself.

The US has 350,000,000 people, with much of the firearm-related violence occurring in areas with strict gun control already. It is precisely this that undermines the possibility of _nobody owning guns_ as an effective argument.

The reality is the US used to (until the PATRIOT Act, NDAA, et al - the list is much longer than that and actually goes back in the late 1800s) place a higher emphasis on individual rights than other countries - this is reflected in our access to legal firearm ownership, to a degree. Rights are not without risks due to the responsibility of the individual to uphold not just his rights, but those of others, and it is precisely those risks that Authoritarians aim to exploit when lapses occur. "If you just give me the power, then I can make everything the way you want it! I can give you safety!"



> Pray tell how people will defend themselves from an armed take over of society by the govt with assault rifles which Greiver so kindly demonstrated aren't as effective as anyone is making them out to be? I know the US carries innocents off to Guantanamo and has stuff like the NDAA. How is guns stopping that? You don't see that in countries where guns are outlawed to civilians.



Guns aren't stopping NDAA, et al, because Americans don't care enough about the rights of others. To actually get Americans to do something you have to piss off a large number of them, and nothing does that quite like the 1st and 2nd Amendments (they are #1 and #2 for good reason).

Owners of assault rifles wouldn't be winning any dramatic victory against the US Government. Nobody has any such pretensions. There would be resistance. The means of resistance would be 4th Generation Warfare.

Of course, for Authoritarian Collectivists, particularly those anti-social Utilitarians, they don't really care what the death toll is so long as they are unharmed. The mistake they are making is assuming that there will be no resistance if they ever attempt to abrogate the 2nd Amendment (in the American Civil War a large contingent of civilians came to watch the first battle because neither side believed the other would fight, so there is historical support for this sort of ignorance).



> People choose to carry guns, tools made specifically to kill that give people a sense of power over other people's lives, tools they use to inspire fear into others so that they will not mess with them. That is already far more dangerous than any video game. I'm not searching for hypocrisy where there's none. You're the one not seeing it in the first place.



This is psychological projection of what you think you would be doing if you were carrying a gun, or saw someone carrying a gun.

Open carry is legal in Arizona. In rural areas it is not at all uncommon to see, and when your average person sees it they don't start thinking they're going to get shot, and being fearful. The people carrying aren't trying to intimidate you, either.

I don't walk in the grocery store (and yes, you see open carry at grocery stores), see a man practicing open carry, and shit my pants. He's practicing his rights, and it's totally fine. People around him aren't ducking for cover, either. You go on about your business, and pay it no mind.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 17, 2013)

Grrraw tyrannical rant about guns masquerading as intellectual opinion. 

It just came out today that the NRA actually has stopped the ATF from doing the job that the NRA says they should be doing. Background checks need to be shared across state lines, gun dealers checked yearly and gun dealers who sell illegally to someone, or sell to someone drunk or on drugs penalized with fines and possibly the loss of their license. 

What I am saying isn't crazy talk, or me being too strict. This is the way things should be.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 17, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Grrraw tyrannical rant about guns masquerading as intellectual opinion.
> 
> It just came out today that the NRA actually has stopped the ATF from doing the job that the NRA says they should be doing. Background checks need to be shared across state lines, gun dealers checked yearly and gun dealers who sell illegally to someone, or sell to someone drunk or on drugs penalized with fines and possibly the loss of their license.
> 
> What I am saying isn't crazy talk, or me being too strict. This is the way things should be.



You are a socialist authoritarian that hates guns and wants us to live in tyranny, CTK. Don't deny it! I can smell it on you!


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 17, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> You are a socialist authoritarian that hates guns and wants us to live in tyranny, CTK. Don't deny it! I can smell it on you!


I like how Byran portrays me, another person who happens to own guns, grew up in a military family, with a gun collecting brother and has nothing against guns and even goes to their defense. But he aligns himself so far past being "pro gun" that it's wild.


----------



## Bender (Jan 17, 2013)

I wonder how rich I'd be if I got a nickel for each time someone mentioned tyrannical government.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 17, 2013)

Nazis would've never taken over if Germany had their guns.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 17, 2013)

Texas actually is taking steps to block the steps taken by the Federal government. People in this state are fucking crazy.


----------



## neko-sennin (Jan 17, 2013)

LesExit said:


> What was going on in the mind of that 7  year old??



Probably what goes on the minds of most 7 year old kids when they bring a new toy to school. 

"Wow! My friends're gonna think this is so cool!"


----------



## Unlosing Ranger (Jan 17, 2013)

So why are these gun sighting happening all at once?


----------



## Griever (Jan 18, 2013)

Bender said:


> I wonder how rich I'd be if I got a nickel for each time someone mentioned tyrannical government.



That's because both sides bring it up all the time, personally i don't like the argument because there are too many variables to say rather the civilian formed militia would actually overthrow the government, or rather the government would crush the resistance. 

The only thing that is certain in regards, is in the end both sides would lose miserably.


----------



## Bryan Paulsen (Jan 18, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I like how Byran portrays me, another person who happens to own guns, grew up in a military family, with a gun collecting brother and has nothing against guns and even goes to their defense. But he aligns himself so far past being "pro gun" that it's wild.



Saying you have "nothing against guns", and then turning around and being pro-assault weapons ban is either benign cognitive dissonance, or flagrant intellectual disingenuity.

Or did I misread you entirely on that? If so, I will be the first to apologize for _all_ of my words directed your way. If not, then a spade is a spade. Take your pick.


----------



## Edward Newgate (Jan 18, 2013)

I'm sure the 7 years old was taught everything he needs to know thanks to NRA's app.


----------



## xdante34 (Jan 18, 2013)

Boy stayed strapped~


----------



## Roman (Jan 18, 2013)

Bryan Paulsen said:


> CTK is most definitely guilty of it. A large number of gun control advocates are as well.



Read: anyone pro-gun control is an idiot who supports class warfare, is anti-social and wants to ragequit life. Herp derp, I'm better than all of you cuz I can deadlift 1000kg 

No but seriously, I think you should stop with your disingenuous assertions. Particularly in debates if your intent is to invite people to a civilized discussion with your attempt at logic (which still escapes me btw).



Bryan Paulsen said:


> The exception are gun control advocates that think the State shouldn't own/have easy access to guns, either, and that *nobody* should own them. Those are much more rare, and as United States gun control advocates go, basically non-existent. If you are of the opinion that _nobody_ should own guns, that's at least an intellectually consistent position to adhere to.



Well, I'm glad I have your respect at least 

No, I actually don't care 



Bryan Paulsen said:


> It doesn't have to be absolute certainty. Anyone with even a nominal study of history knows that there is a _chance_, and just a _chance_ is sufficient to support self-defense against State intrusion.



How much of a chance? 1% is already too much for you to bear? 0.000001% is the cutoff point for you already? Ok sure, let's say there is a chance (when isn't there), but it's so insignificant, so SMALL, is there really a reason to go up in flames whenever someone mentions the govt? I get that it commits crimes that normal people would not be allowed to get away with normally, but how is it even pretending to be intelligent to believe that the US will perform a coup on its own people and turn it to a military state? The US is a democracy, not a dictatorship. Having more guns is not going to solve a problem, particularly one that doesn't need fixing or at any rate can't be fixed with more guns. 

If people are so worried about state intrusion, barricading yourself and preparing for the worst is only allowing it to happen should such a thing happen at all. _Prevention_ is the best cure. The US is a democracy, and the FIRST amendment is the FIRST for a reason. Use *diplomacy* before violence as the latter ought to be a last resort anyways. People are allowed to speak their minds. There's even a website where anyone even outside the US can make petitions (I know because I've done it once already). If your worry is state intrusion, exercise your first amendment first, not your second.



Bryan Paulsen said:


> The logic isn't that remarkable. Before guns, there were swords, daggers, et al. People have used weaponry with the designed intent to kill in self-defense for millenia.
> 
> In medieval times kings often kept the peasantry from owning their own swords, etc. Those in power always wish to maintain a completely monopoly on force. Unless you are that monopoly under no circumstances should you rule out viable tools for self-defense.



Yes. And people from millennia ago through the middle ages carried out witch-hunts, sacrificed children, kings killed their wives to marry another they thought more beautiful only to kill her to marry someone else or would even have more than one wife/concubines, slaves were used as entertainment in massive death games all over the kingdom/empire, etc. People used to be SO civilized back then. Oh yes, it's quite logical 



Bryan Paulsen said:


> Self-ownership isn't a need, it is a principle, it is a fact that can be verified by yourself.
> 
> The US has 350,000,000 people, with much of the firearm-related violence occurring in areas with strict gun control already. It is precisely this that undermines the possibility of _nobody owning guns_ as an effective argument.
> 
> The reality is the US used to (until the PATRIOT Act, NDAA, et al - the list is much longer than that and actually goes back in the late 1800s) place a higher emphasis on individual rights than other countries - this is reflected in our access to legal firearm ownership, to a degree. Rights are not without risks due to the responsibility of the individual to uphold not just his rights, but those of others, and it is precisely those risks that Authoritarians aim to exploit when lapses occur. "If you just give me the power, then I can make everything the way you want it! I can give you safety!"



Yes, and in the UK where guns are forbidden to the average person and police officer alike, we experience far less overall murder than the US and violent crime has been dropping significantly since 1995. That's plenty of evidence already that absolute gun-control works. The problem with the US is not the large population, but the gun culture stemming from _people's obsession over_ the second amendment (which someone takes precedence over the first amendment to some people). Restricting gun ownership by carrying out more strict tests before obtaining a license and outright banning assault weapons is a good first step toward curbing the gun culture and to a perhaps lesser degree the gun violence. 

And no, I'm not talking about giving the govt more power to protect the people. I don't know where you're getting that from. The US is already powerful enough to protect its people as it is, and there's no way in hell anyone with half a brain can't tell the US is in absolutely no risk of a foreign invasion. Mexico is chump change compared to the US. Canada is one of the most peaceful countries in the world. South America has its own problems to deal with, and everyone else would have to overcome an ocean or two in order to attack, thus completely nullifying the element of surprise for the invader.



Bryan Paulsen said:


> Guns aren't stopping NDAA, et al, because Americans don't care enough about the rights of others. To actually get Americans to do something you have to piss off a large number of them, and nothing does that quite like the 1st and 2nd Amendments (they are #1 and #2 for good reason).
> 
> Owners of assault rifles wouldn't be winning any dramatic victory against the US Government. Nobody has any such pretensions. There would be resistance. The means of resistance would be 4th Generation Warfare.
> 
> Of course, for Authoritarian Collectivists, particularly those anti-social Utilitarians, they don't really care what the death toll is so long as they are unharmed. The mistake they are making is assuming that there will be no resistance if they ever attempt to abrogate the 2nd Amendment (in the American Civil War a large contingent of civilians came to watch the first battle because neither side believed the other would fight, so there is historical support for this sort of ignorance).



The perhaps they should care because they're all people of the same nation. You essentially just pointed out another major flaw in US society: people don't care about each other. They only seem to care about barricading themselves and waiting to shoot anyone who tries to invade them, especially anyone govt-associated.

And wow. Way to go Bryan! So you're basically saying "I don't care if we all die, at least we were able to exercise our right to gun-ownership and fight." What were you just saying about someone not caring how many people die for the sake of leaving them defenseless?



Bryan Paulsen said:


> This is psychological projection of what you think you would be doing if you were carrying a gun, or saw someone carrying a gun.
> 
> Open carry is legal in Arizona. In rural areas it is not at all uncommon to see, and when your average person sees it they don't start thinking they're going to get shot, and being fearful. The people carrying aren't trying to intimidate you, either.
> 
> I don't walk in the grocery store (and yes, you see open carry at grocery stores), see a man practicing open carry, and shit my pants. He's practicing his rights, and it's totally fine. People around him aren't ducking for cover, either. You go on about your business, and pay it no mind.



Yes, it's a psychological projection. Can you really deny it? It inspires fear. It creates peace through fear. I'd just gotten done telling superraizen that peace through fear is not one that could ever last. You're worried about people losing their right to guns when you should be worrying how people view each other (with hostility, I should mention).


----------



## Roman (Jan 18, 2013)

PureWIN said:


> "If a shooter came to that school, that 7 year-old would've shot him dead. "
> 
> -NRA



I thought you were oprisco due to your avatar for a moment and thought you were playing double-standards.

Then I saw you're actually PureWIN and was glad to see you're living up to your name 

But think of the children! They need dem guns! If those kids were armed with guns, they'd be able to defend themselves from crazy shooters!!!!


----------



## corsair (Jan 18, 2013)

How could he defend against someone taking his lunchmoney without a gun?


----------



## wibisana (Jan 18, 2013)

oh. why can't they just take the gun?
-Homer Simpson (Season 7. ep 18)

this parent is more epic than homer. lol


----------



## Leon (Jan 18, 2013)

> at a Queens elementary school.



This explains things.


----------



## Cheeky (Jan 18, 2013)




----------



## LouDAgreat (Jan 18, 2013)

Bryan Paulson said:
			
		

> They are only offensive when used offensively. Self-defense doesn't always occur against singular targets.



They always were, always are and always will be pure offensive weapons meant to inflict maximum damage to many targets.They weren't made for "self-defense". Get that into your little head. 



> Efficiency in their application of defense does not form a criticism. Only focusing on a usage that is aggressive (offensive), and therefore unethical, does not qualify as a criticism of their ownership. There are already laws against the aggressive usage of any weapon.



Yes it fucking does. According to your logic any weapon no matter their destructive potential can be used for self-defence so long as it's not used aggressively: miniguns, tanks, nukes, chemical and biological weapons. Assault weapons when used even in self-defence have the power to inflict more casualties than intended with misfires and random spray. In the interest of "self-defense" you put public safety in the back seat.  You assume the use of these weapons won't be used unethically, which is a crock of shit since pistols are used all the time unethically. The worse thing we could possibly do is it make assault weapons more available for those that would. 

Your statements reflects your a complete lack of understanding of how some weapons are more dangerous and destructive than others. When a weapon can kill dozens of people with a single clip, any defensive use of this weapon is beyond extreme and unnecessary. You treat all weapons equally as self-defense tools. You are gravely mistaken.



> You have failed, in multiple threads now, to put together a coherent criticism of owning them. You have failed, multiple threads now, to put together an argument eliminating defensive usage.



If you could read, or maybe get your head out of your ass you'd see how coherent those criticisms are. 



> "Public safety" is a relativistic, innocuous consideration without any tangible logical basis.



No it's a pretty concrete idea in the context of assault weapons. More assault weapons with high rpm in the hands of millions of people in public squares, churches, schools, workplaces and the home is bad. Why don't you draw a picture of 100,000 people in a downtown district with Ak-47s. Now let one criminal fire off a gun, and think of the potential shitstorm that could ensue. 



> Individual rights, on the other hand, are based on a priori considerations, like self-ownership. Self-defense is a consequence of self-ownership, and ownership of tools of self-defense falls under the right of self-defense.



There is no a priori right to own an assault weapon invented specifically for maximum destructive.Assault weapons are built a prior for maximum destruction, beyond the scop of defense, therefore no assault weapons.



> As I have previously demonstrated to you: the State is not responsible for personal defense.



The State is responsible for the health and safety of all citizens. When millions of people own assault weapons, there is an inherent degradation of public health and safety as those weapons can cause such massive destruction. 



> The Supreme Court and Appellate Courts support my position. You called it a "philosophical error" on their part. When reality, and logic, contradicts your position it is usually suggested you revisit your premise, and establish a different conclusion.



Once again the Supreme Court errs in judgement repeatedly throughout history. Overtime, the Court realizes it's mistake and lays down a new precedent. Hopefully in the future, the Supreme Court recognizes there's is absolutely no need, and a clear and present danger for civilian use of assault weapons.



> In short, you are wrong, and your argument against access to efficient weaponry, resting on the responsibility of the State for protection, is void and without merit.



By demanding access of heavy assault weapons for yourself, you empower  criminals and madmen everywhere. The blood of Newtown is on your hands. This statement makes it clear.


----------



## Hand Banana (Jan 18, 2013)

Would of been sweet to hear about a seven year old shooting up the school all due to not being able to go on a field trip with the rest of his classmates.


----------



## T7 Bateman (Jan 18, 2013)

Well you know he had it just in case a shooter came to school no worries it's not like some haven't called for kids to have guns at school you know just in case.


----------



## ShadowReij (Jan 18, 2013)

No one's ever heard of keeping things under lock and key anymore?


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 18, 2013)

Griever said:


> That's because both sides bring it up all the time, personally i don't like the argument because there are too many variables to say rather the civilian formed militia would actually overthrow the government, or rather the government would crush the resistance.
> 
> The only thing that is certain in regards, is in the end both sides would lose miserably.



The civilians would be massacred.


----------



## Griever (Jan 18, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> The civilians would be massacred.



That's idiotic Seto. When soldiers are ordered to turn their weapons on their own countrymen, the soldier loses morale, as a result the military suffers a severe loss of combat ability. the order itself would cause chaos in every branch of the military and possibly lead to mass desertion.

Civil war is one of the most fragile forms or war, and so far from being black and white.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 18, 2013)

Griever said:


> That's idiotic Seto. When soldiers are ordered to turn their weapons on their own countrymen, the soldier loses morale, as a result the military suffers a severe loss of combat ability. the order itself would cause chaos in every branch of the military and possibly lead to mass desertion.
> 
> Civil war is one of the most fragile forms or war, and so far from being black and white.



You presented a scenario of the military vs. a civilian militia, and I'm telling you the latter would be massacred. It's not a plausible scenario in our current state of affairs, so the argument is absolutely paranoid and delusional at best.


----------



## Roman (Jan 18, 2013)

Should the military disregard the constitution it defends and pushes to those they think are acting against it (ironically), Seto is right and the civilians would be massacred.


----------



## hadou (Jan 18, 2013)

The right to bear arms is based on an outdated notion in the Constitution. This is as clear as water.


----------



## Linkdarkside (Jan 18, 2013)

*Obama Gun Proposals Praised by Scientists*


> President Barack Obama's proposals for tackling gun violence are drawing praise from scientists, who particularly support Obama's lifting of bans on federal gun research.
> 
> The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have been barred from supporting research into gun violence since the 1990s, when Congress inserted language into budgetary legislation forbidding the agency from using money to "advocate or promote gun control." Because research into the causes of gun crime could potentially be used to do just that, the agency froze its gun violence research program. The National Institutes of Health has operated under similar restrictions since 2011.
> 
> ...



http://news.yahoo.com/obama-gun-proposals-praised-scientists-214218458.html


----------



## Roman (Jan 18, 2013)

Excellent. I'm also quite amazed that congress itself made moves to stop the CDC and other health organizations from researching gun violence thinking (perhaps correctly) that it would encourage people there needs to be more gun control. Somehow, I find it ironic that the very govt people are afraid will become tyrannical is the very same govt that's pushing for more guns.


----------



## Raptorz (Jan 18, 2013)

Why did a seven year old bring a gun to school?


----------



## Bryan Paulsen (Jan 18, 2013)

LouDAgreat said:


> They always were, always are and always will be pure offensive weapons meant to inflict maximum damage to many targets.They weren't made for "self-defense". Get that into your little head.



They have been used in self-defense, repeatedly, rendering your whole assertion baseless.



> Yes it fucking does. According to your logic any weapon no matter their destructive potential can be used for self-defence so long as it's not used aggressively: miniguns, tanks, nukes, chemical and biological weapons.



We've covered this previously. Any weapon that causes collateral damage _regardless of usage_ does not qualify as a means of self-defense due to implicit aggression against innocents.

Your drivel about nukes, et al, has been rightly rejected on that purely logical grounds. Never mind the implicit _fallacy of equivocation_ you rest that argument on.



> Assault weapons when used even in self-defence have the power to inflict more casualties than intended with misfires and random spray. In the interest of "self-defense" you put public safety in the back seat.  You assume the use of these weapons won't be used unethically, which is a crock of shit since pistols are used all the time unethically. The worse thing we could possibly do is it make assault weapons more available for those that would.



There are laws that correctly deal with the unethical usage of any weapon. Your whole concern about "public safety" is without merit.

And yes, self-defense trumps public safety given a clearly outlined definition of what constitutes self-defense. _A priori_ trumps _a posteriori_, as stated previously.

You keep appealing to aggression, an unethical action regardless of weaponry, as cause to subvert the right of self-defense. This is a strawman, and rejected on logical grounds. Your failure to recognize any usage in a self-defense capacity damns your entire position.



> No it's a pretty concrete idea in the context of assault weapons. More assault weapons with high rpm in the hands of millions of people in public squares, churches, schools, workplaces and the home is bad. Why don't you draw a picture of 100,000 people in a downtown district with Ak-47s. Now let one criminal fire off a gun, and think of the potential shitstorm that could ensue.



Apparently you're suffering from this delusion that everybody would open fire, mass chaos ensues, and a huge number of casualties occurs. People aren't that stupid, but given you think the State needs to be our Lord and Savior, you probably believe they are that stupid.

Never mind you confusing the right to self-defense with the need to be fully armed at all times. States with open carry and lax gun laws do not see the entire populace armed, rendering your hyperbole entirely inane.



> There is no a priori right to own an assault weapon invented specifically for maximum destructive.Assault weapons are built a prior for maximum destruction, beyond the scop of defense, therefore no assault weapons.



Establishing self-ownership is an _a priori_ logical consideration. Ownership of means of self-defense stems from said self-ownership.

That something can be used for aggressive purposes is not a criticism of their usage in a defensive capacity.



> The State is responsible for the health and safety of all citizens. When millions of people own assault weapons, there is an inherent degradation of public health and safety as those weapons can cause such massive destruction.



The State is not responsible for the protection of individual citizens. It repeatedly disavowed responsibility.

You won't give it up, no matter how much the State, your God, tells you it isn't going to take responsibility. Delusional.



> Once again the Supreme Court errs in judgement repeatedly throughout history. Overtime, the Court realizes it's mistake and lays down a new precedent. Hopefully in the future, the Supreme Court recognizes there's is absolutely no need, and a clear and present danger for civilian use of assault weapons.



How about you hold your breath until they change it? That way, I can assure I never hear from you again.



> By demanding access of heavy assault weapons for yourself, you empower  criminals and madmen everywhere. The blood of Newtown is on your hands. This statement makes it clear.



Criminals, by definition, have forfeited their rights by aggressing against other individuals. 

"Madmen" is another issue entirely. A not-insignificant percentage of the military, for example, is taking SSRIs, something linked to violent outburts and suicide. There is no fool-proof way of catching a potential madman.

And it's damn certain "madmen" aren't an excuse to prevent the _proletariat_ from owning them.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 18, 2013)

Bryan Paulsen said:


> They have been used in self-defense, repeatedly, rendering your whole assertion baseless.


I could defend myself with a Katana, a flame thrower, or use traps to protect my house...all of which are illegal.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 18, 2013)

They've been used in self-defense....by cartel members...


----------



## Bryan Paulsen (Jan 18, 2013)

Freedan said:


> Read: anyone pro-gun control is an idiot who supports class warfare, is anti-social and wants to ragequit life. Herp derp, I'm better than all of you cuz I can deadlift 1000kg



I wish I could deadlift 1000kg, seriously. 

Gun control advocates that insist the State retains ownership are endorsing class warfare. The proletariat against the bourgeoisie. It is, in fact, a pretty classical demonstration of that dichotomy. The bourgeoisie have special rights denied the _proletariat_.



> How much of a chance? 1% is already too much for you to bear? 0.000001% is the cutoff point for you already? Ok sure, let's say there is a chance (when isn't there), but it's so insignificant, so SMALL, is there really a reason to go up in flames whenever someone mentions the govt? I get that it commits crimes that normal people would not be allowed to get away with normally, but how is it even pretending to be intelligent to believe that the US will perform a coup on its own people and turn it to a military state? The US is a democracy, not a dictatorship. Having more guns is not going to solve a problem, particularly one that doesn't need fixing or at any rate can't be fixed with more guns.



The chance, however big/small it may be, isn't really an important issue. It's tangential, and historically verifiable as relevant. That said, nobody has any fantasies of overthrowing the government. This is about whether the individual has the right to tools of self-defense that are on par with what the State has, and whether they could ever be potentially aimed at a tyrannical State.

The State earns criticism when it endorses class warfare, instead of protecting the rights of individuals in the event they are violated, which is *all* the State is _ever_ supposed to do lest it begin intruding on the rights of individuals. When it _does_ violate the rights of others, then it is the duty of the citizen to push back.



> If people are so worried about state intrusion, barricading yourself and preparing for the worst is only allowing it to happen should such a thing happen at all. _Prevention_ is the best cure. The US is a democracy, and the FIRST amendment is the FIRST for a reason. Use *diplomacy* before violence as the latter ought to be a last resort anyways. People are allowed to speak their minds. There's even a website where anyone even outside the US can make petitions (I know because I've done it once already). If your worry is state intrusion, exercise your first amendment first, not your second.



You do realize, of course, that all of us 2nd Amendment supporters haven't fired a single shot, nor have we showed any sign of aggressive intent. There is a reason that our position is summed up thusly: _Molon Labe_. Our position, with regard to our guns is defense - if the State comes for them, then it is an attack on our person. That is the position from which we negotiate, and given we can defend our position on entirely logical grounds there will be _no_ negotiations with people that think what we own should be forcibly taken from us. Nor will we deprive future generations of exercising their natural rights.

Democracy can be tyrannical, which is precisely why we are not a democracy. However, abrogation of a document that merely enumerates our natural rights, is unacceptable. It's not that the Bill of Rights and Constitution are inherently special in their own right - they are a means to an end - it's that it puts to word what is man's right by his nature.



> Yes. And people from millennia ago through the middle ages carried out witch-hunts, sacrificed children, kings killed their wives to marry another they thought more beautiful only to kill her to marry someone else or would even have more than one wife/concubines, slaves were used as entertainment in massive death games all over the kingdom/empire, etc. People used to be SO civilized back then. Oh yes, it's quite logical



You do realize, of course, most of these activities were State-driven, correct?

Democide. You will do yourself a favor by studying it.



> Yes, and in the UK where guns are forbidden to the average person and police officer alike, we experience far less overall murder than the US and violent crime has been dropping significantly since 1995. That's plenty of evidence already that absolute gun-control works. The problem with the US is not the large population, but the gun culture stemming from _people's obsession over_ the second amendment (which someone takes precedence over the first amendment to some people). Restricting gun ownership by carrying out more strict tests before obtaining a license and outright banning assault weapons is a good first step toward curbing the gun culture and to a perhaps lesser degree the gun violence.



No right trumps any other right, as they inherent to nature. There's not a single 2nd Amendment supporter that believes it trumps the 1st.

I hope you realize that crime rates have been falling towards rates seen in the 1960s in the USA. Never mind that more homicides are committed with knives and fists than guns in the United States, yearly.

There's also the issue of gun violence being higher in areas with notoriously strict gun control (ie: Chicago), and urbanized areas in general.



> The perhaps they should care because they're all people of the same nation. You essentially just pointed out another major flaw in US society: people don't care about each other. They only seem to care about barricading themselves and waiting to shoot anyone who tries to invade them, especially anyone govt-associated.



You care for people by supporting their rights, not by restricting them.



> And wow. Way to go Bryan! So you're basically saying "I don't care if we all die, at least we were able to exercise our right to gun-ownership and fight." What were you just saying about someone not caring how many people die for the sake of leaving them defenseless?



No. I'm clearly starting attacks on my person will be met with force. If enough people do it, and there's a large enough movement to abrogate the rights of people that won't tolerate such incursions, then blood will be shed.

That's reality.

_Molon labe_.



> Yes, it's a psychological projection. Can you really deny it? It inspires fear. It creates peace through fear. I'd just gotten done telling superraizen that peace through fear is not one that could ever last. You're worried about people losing their right to guns when you should be worrying how people view each other (with hostility, I should mention).



I have never, in my life, been fearful around a person practicing open carry, whether it's a cop or civilian. Your projection is an issue you have to deal with, and isn't endemic to everyone.

You should try educating yourself not just about guns, but about lawful gun owners. Try to figure out if your fear is justified.


----------



## Bender (Jan 18, 2013)

Ha!


----------



## Bryan Paulsen (Jan 18, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I could defend myself with a Katana, a flame thrower, or use traps to protect my house...all of which are illegal.



The ban on katanas is ridiculous. Full stop. There is no need to ban something that is a relatively inefficient defensive tool compared to many other alternatives.

Flame throwers, on the other hand, have no full ban that I am aware of (feel free to point me to it).

"Traps"? What? Steel traps? There is no user disgression in their application. It's the same reason that land mines aren't up for private ownership.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 18, 2013)

Bryan Paulsen said:


> The ban on katanas is ridiculous. Full stop. There is no need to ban something that is a relatively inefficient defensive tool compared to many other alternatives.
> 
> Flame throwers, on the other hand, have no full ban that I am aware of (feel free to point me to it).
> 
> "Traps"? What? Steel traps? There is no user disgression in their application. It's the same reason that land mines aren't up for private ownership.


The ban on land mines infringes on our freedoms; if I want to put a landmine on the third step of my staircase that should be okay because no one should be on that step without my permission.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 18, 2013)

I have a right to a drone if I can afford it!


----------



## Bryan Paulsen (Jan 18, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> The ban on land mines infringes on our freedoms; if I want to put a landmine on the third step of my staircase that should be okay because no one should be on that step without my permission.



And it'll magically deactivate if someone you allowed in your house steps on it? Sarcasm aside... Weapons with inherent disregard for collateral damage, whether by the nature of the ballistics used or lack of personal discretion, do not qualify as a means of self-defense.

I tried to find something on a ban for flame throwers. Turns out there is no ban. Apparently the right to self-defense from killer bee attacks (their primary domestic use these days, apparently) trumps the possibility of incinerating someone. Ho-hum. Pretty boring for such a famous weapon.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 18, 2013)

Bryan Paulsen said:


> And it'll magically deactivate if someone you allowed in your house steps on it? Sarcasm aside... Weapons with inherent disregard for collateral damage, whether by the nature of the ballistics used or lack of personal discretion, do not qualify as a means of self-defense.


Um, they could just step over the mine. That was the point of what I said. 

I don't see how you can think the weapons you're talking about are for self-defense. 



Bryan Paulsen said:


> I tried to find something on a ban for flame throwers. Turns out there is no ban. Apparently the right to self-defense from killer bee attacks (their primary domestic use these days, apparently) trumps the possibility of incinerating someone. Ho-hum. Pretty boring for such a famous weapon.


That's incredibly fucking stupid. Flame throwers should be illegal, I guess that's what you get for assuming the law makes sense.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 18, 2013)

What the fuck. You can use legal means to fend off killer bees. It's called carbon monoxide!


----------



## Bryan Paulsen (Jan 18, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Um, they could just step over the mine. That was the point of what I said.
> 
> I don't see how you can think the weapons you're talking about are for self-defense.



Apparently you missed the sarcasm (I did write "Sarcasm aside..." for a reason)...

Because they *are* used in self-defense, and effectively so. Any weapon that requires both personal discretion and employs concentrated force qualifies as a means of self-defense, even using the most rigid definition of self-defense.



> That's incredibly fucking stupid. Flame throwers should be illegal, I guess that's what you get for assuming the law makes sense.



Arbitrary rule of law is precisely what you get when the driving force behind said laws isn't strictly logical. Long live _the Law of Unintended Consequences_.



			
				Seto Kaiba said:
			
		

> What the fuck. You can use legal means to fend off killer bees. It's called carbon monoxide!



The flame thrower is a legal means. 

(Which is exactly why the law means jack shit in regards to whether something is actually morally/ethically permissible behavior.)


----------



## TSC (Jan 18, 2013)

Unlosing Ranger said:


> So why are these gun sighting happening all at once?



Starting to seem like a fad now


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 18, 2013)

Bryan Paulsen said:


> Apparently you missed the sarcasm (I did write "Sarcasm aside..." for a reason)...
> 
> Because they *are* used in self-defense, and effectively so. Any weapon that requires both personal discretion and employs concentrated force qualifies as a means of self-defense, even using the most rigid definition of self-defense.



They're not, you're repeating lies that the NRA tells because they are getting kick backs from gun makers and feel indebted to those interests rather than the interests of the people. 

What should happen is the makers of these guns should be prosecuted, considering that the makers of cigarettes were sued it makes sense that gun makers be too, they're purposefully trying market something that has no use other than killing as many people as possible. 

Gun makers have a long standing history of this, like when they couldn't sell the Thompson after WWI ended and the sold them to the mob which led to huge issues in cities like Chicago and New York. 

We wouldn't need to deal with these issues now if the ATF hadn't been castrated by the NRA and their Republicans lackeys. 



Bryan Paulsen said:


> Arbitrary rule of law is precisely what you get when the driving force behind said laws isn't strictly logical. Long live _the Law of Unintended Consequences_.


Except that the problem here is a lack of a law, that weapon should be totally illegal for use by any civilian or Police Force.


----------



## TSC (Jan 18, 2013)

Katanas are banned? Where? I own a couple and I never heard it's illegal to own one.


----------



## Kahvehane (Jan 18, 2013)

And just like that, those poor children were robbed of the most exciting and nerve-wracking show-and-tell of their lives.


----------



## Bryan Paulsen (Jan 18, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> They're not, you're repeating lies that the NRA tells because they are getting kick backs from gun makers and feel indebted to those interests rather than the interests of the people.



I do so love when someone puts themselves in a position where one example destroys their entire argument:



It is fun watching you and _LouDaGreat_ claim their usage in a defensive capacity is _impossible_, but anyone rigorous in their logic would know such hyperbole will inevitably fail.

The next step for your argument is to tread into relativism regarding the usage of the weapon, which is an even easier argument to logically dismantle. Feel free to start that ball rolling, if you care to.



> What should happen is the makers of these guns should be prosecuted, considering that the makers of cigarettes were sued it makes sense that gun makers be too, they're purposefully trying market something that has no use other than killing as many people as possible.



Any gun that can be reloaded would be, according to you, "something that has no use other than killing as many people as possible."

And you're just copying _LouDaGreat_ now - ignoring any defensive usage of the weapon, because it is extremely inconvenient for your entire position.



> Except that the problem here is a lack of a law, that weapon should be totally illegal for use by any civilian or Police Force.



Failing to establish an intellectually consistent basis for laws concerning ownership of weaponry results in precisely that sort of glaring hole. Arbitrary rule of law produces that sort of problem, but that's the Law of Unintended Consequences at work. You reap what you sow.


----------



## Bryan Paulsen (Jan 18, 2013)

TSC said:


> Katanas are banned? Where? I own a couple and I never heard it's illegal to own one.



Most states have them covered under laws affecting knives from what I could tell.

No federal restrictions, either.

...And I just checked for Arizona. I can open carry a katana in public, apparently, according to one source. Further research needed.

I guess this means Arizona will become a mixture of the Wild West and Feudal Japan according to the dipshits on this board.

*Edit: Confirmed. Open carry of a "samurai sword" would, in fact, be legal in the state of Arizona. Only concealed carry would be illegal, or bringing it to places in which weapons are banned, ie: government property.*


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 18, 2013)

Arizona isn't exactly the model state for sensible laws.


----------



## Shinryu (Jan 19, 2013)

This is why you should play COD when your 12


----------



## Stunna (Jan 19, 2013)

Flamethrowers are legal?


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Jan 19, 2013)

*Democrat Lawmaker brandishes AK47 in Assembly*



> A Richmond-area lawmaker brandished an AK-47 on the floor of the Virginia House of Delegates on Thursday in a wild stunt aimed at rallying support for tougher gun laws.
> 
> Del. Joe Morrissey, D-Highland Springs, pulled the weapon out shortly after the day's session got underway, a time when legislators typically welcome school groups and other visitors in the chamber's gallery.
> 
> ...





This is Jackassery of the highest level.  You do not brandish weapons unless you are going to use them.

In light of the recent mass shootings committed with such weapons, anyone with a concealed weapons permit who wasn't in on the stunt could have reasonably shot him dead.


----------



## makeoutparadise (Jan 19, 2013)

Straight out of the onion I tellz ya!!


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Jan 19, 2013)

Bryan Paulsen said:


> Flame throwers, on the other hand, have no full ban that I am aware of (feel free to point me to it).



Flame throwers are completely legal in the US and not restricted in any way, shape or form on a federal level, mostly because they're ridiculously dangerous to all involved and not really an issue.  

Make your own flame thrower  and try to use it for armed robbery or home defense.  Then report back to me when you die horribly.  There's a reason the DoD decided to stop using them as weapons, they sorta suck outside of trench warfare.

As an aside, does the IDF use flamethrowers?

Real flame throwers, as opposed to the fantasy kind, are mostly for clearing out holes in the ground, controlled burns, or flame weeding.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jan 19, 2013)

The Space Cowboy said:


> This is Jackassery of the highest level.  You do not brandish weapons unless you are going to use them.
> 
> In light of the recent mass shootings committed with such weapons, anyone with a concealed weapons permit who wasn't in on the stunt could have reasonably shot him dead.



I'm sorry, but are you retarded? Someone should have shot him dead for what? His entire point was to show that this is perfectly legal. Anyone who would've shot him for having this weapon with him would be a murderer. Is that what you condone?

The fact that you feel it's wrong to bring an AK-47 to the assembly (or anywhere, really) means that you agree with him about tougher gun laws.

Also:



> Del. Todd Gilbert, R-Woodstock, interrupted Morrissey's speech to ask him to take his finger out of the trigger guard and later said that taking guns from citizens is what led to the Holocaust and mass killings under the Soviet Gulag.



What a historically illiterate piece of shit.


----------



## TSC (Jan 19, 2013)

The Space Cowboy said:


> Flame throwers are completely legal in the US and not restricted in any way, shape or form on a federal level, mostly because they're ridiculously dangerous to all involved and not really an issue.
> 
> Make your own flame thrower  and try to use it for armed robbery or home defense.  Then report back to me when you die horribly.  There's a reason the DoD decided to stop using them as weapons, they sorta suck outside of trench warfare.
> 
> ...



What the hell would be a "fantasy kind" be??


----------



## Blitzomaru (Jan 19, 2013)

Here's the thing... He violated no law. And that's what crazy. Why do you need to walk around with a concealed handgun? or a concealed rifle? or an open carry handgun? Or own a weapon that can shred a body to pieces? 

I'll say it once and I'll say it again. Gun control isn't about taking away all your guns. It's about 3 things.
1) Making sure people who have guns are responible, law abiding citizens 
2)Making sure that weapons can be tracked toa point of sale and ownership.
3) Making sure people don't have military grade weaponry as civillians because A) It's highly excessive firepower for an individual and B) even if the government became some kind of facist regime, you think you and your friends with your AR-15's and AK-47's can stop tanks, missiles and mortars? If they want to take all your guns, they're taking your guns. that ain't the case, tho.


Now that lawmaker might not have done it in the best way, but he proved a point, that a person could walk into the state capital building LEGALLY with an assault rifle. He did nothing wrong till he started waving t around like an idiot, even tho he assured everyone it was unloaded.  You say a fellow lawmaker could hav epuller a pistol on him. Why are our lawmakers armed? This isn't the wild west. It's not kill or be killed. If we had a federal tracking system, and stricter gun control laws, and people who didn't either leave their guns in easily accessible places in their houses so their kids can get them and take them to school, we wouldn't be at this point right now.


----------



## Takahashi (Jan 19, 2013)

TSC said:


> What the hell would be a "fantasy kind" be??



Portable Dragon heads.


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Jan 19, 2013)

Saufsoldat said:


> I'm sorry, but are you retarded? Someone should have shot him dead for what? His entire point was to show that this is perfectly legal. Anyone who would've shot him for having this weapon with him would be a murderer. Is that what you condone?



I said "could" not "should."  Making his point could have set up the circumstances for someone committing justifiable homicide.  I consider his actions to be in the same league as people who say "Hold my beer, and watch this."

Virginia law has no duty to retreat for bystanders who are legally in the place they are in, and not part of the problem that calls for the use of force.  Other lawmakers might have been armed because they had the right to carry a weapon for self defense.

Legal protections of natural rights do not encompass actions that would create a clear and present danger (See also, fire in a crowded theater).  I would honestly be surprised if any legislation this guy ever proposes gets passed after this.


----------



## Lucaniel (Jan 19, 2013)

he kinda looks like he's trying to take a tough picture for his facebook profile


----------



## Hatifnatten (Jan 19, 2013)

Not MK? HE'S NOT A REAL MURIKAN!


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jan 19, 2013)

The Space Cowboy said:


> I said "could" not "should."  Making his point could have set up the circumstances for someone committing justifiable homicide.  I consider his actions to be in the same league as people who say "Hold my beer, and watch this."



Justifiable? How the fuck is it justifiable to shoot someone who is doing absolutely nothing illegal?



> Virginia law has no duty to retreat for bystanders who are legally in the place they are in, and not part of the problem that calls for the use of force.  Other lawmakers might have been armed because they had the right to carry a weapon for self defense.
> 
> Legal protections of natural rights do not encompass actions that would create a clear and present danger (See also, fire in a crowded theater).  I would honestly be surprised if any legislation this guy ever proposes gets passed after this.





Wow, you really don't get it. He did nothing, absolutely nothing that was against the law or would warrant anyone else shooting him. And *that was his point*. When you see someone in the street loading an AK47, you feel threatened. When you see someone in an assembly brandishing and AK47, you feel threatened. But *there is nothing you can do about it*, because it's legal.

If anyone there with a gun would have so much as fired a shot, when Morrissey got out his AK47, that man would've been the one who would've been arrested, not Morrissey.


----------



## Cromer (Jan 19, 2013)

This probably the first time I'm in complete agreement with Saufsoldat. If you agree that for safety reasons anyone driving a car on the roads should have a licence to do so (and cars are not killing machines by design), how much more important would it be to ensure that those who carry weapons are of fit and proper capacity, mental and physical, to carry them?


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 19, 2013)

> Del. Todd Gilbert, R-Woodstock, interrupted Morrissey's speech to ask him to take his finger out of the trigger guard and later said that taking guns from citizens is what led to the Holocaust and mass killings under the Soviet Gulag.



I find this guy to be the real, and an even bigger bigger jackass. Seriously, what's with people repeating retarded statements like this? Soviet Russia, came about partly *BECAUSE*of civilian revolt, and the authoritarian regime of Stalin in particular due to manipulation of internal politics and seizing of political power. Hitler took advantage of Germany's broken spirit after WWI, providing them a target to blame for their losses, all the while seizing more and more power as he gained popularity.


----------



## stream (Jan 19, 2013)

I'll also have to go with Sauf on this. If you think that what this guy did is retarded, dangerous and he should not have done it, you are proving his point. Nobody should do this. That is why it should be illegal.

Seeing somebody with an AK in the street should be cause for calling the cops. As it is now, people will certainly feel threatened and scared, but if you call the cops, there is nothing they can do. This is fairly ridiculous.


----------



## Nighty the Mighty (Jan 19, 2013)

Because people commit mass murder using alcohol as a weapon amirite?


----------



## drache (Jan 19, 2013)

The Space Cowboy said:


> This is Jackassery of the highest level.  You do not brandish weapons unless you are going to use them.
> 
> In light of the recent mass shootings committed with such weapons, anyone with a concealed weapons permit who wasn't in on the stunt could have reasonably shot him dead.



sorry no the only jackassery is the GOP dragging it's feet on sensible and needed gun laws

the man had a point, one that apparently went right over your head

and your 'point' is exactly why concealed carry is such a momentarily stupid idea overall


except we're not talking about prohibiting guns


----------



## Blitzomaru (Jan 19, 2013)

Well the finger on the trigger thing I can understand. But statements like that I hope someone takes his viagra, cause he don't need to reproduce...


----------



## Ippy (Jan 19, 2013)

stream said:


> I'll also have to go with Sauf on this. If you think that what this guy did is retarded, dangerous and he should not have done it, you are proving his point. Nobody should do this. That is why it should be illegal.
> 
> Seeing somebody with an AK in the street should be cause for calling the cops. As it is now, people will certainly feel threatened and scared, but if you call the cops, there is nothing they can do. This is fairly ridiculous.


Bingo            .


----------



## AfterGlow (Jan 19, 2013)

> The same panel also rejected universal background checks for gun buyers and sent a proposal to arm school staff to Gov. Bob McDonnell's school safety task force.



And this is why the rest of the civilized world shakes our heads and shrugs at school shootings in the US; you have entirely brought it upon yourselves with your moronic fucktard representatives which seems to live in some alternate reality where fires are doused by throwing gasoline at them.

Universal background checks on people buying assault weapons?
THAT WOULD IMPOSE OUR FREEDOMZ HURR DURR!


----------



## Sanity Check (Jan 19, 2013)

stream said:


> I'll also have to go with Sauf on this. If you think that what this guy did is retarded, dangerous and he should not have done it, you are proving his point. Nobody should do this. That is why it should be illegal.
> 
> Seeing somebody with an AK in the street should be cause for calling the cops. As it is now, people will certainly feel threatened and scared, but if you call the cops, there is nothing they can do. This is fairly ridiculous.



Attempting to address violence or crime by banning assault weapons is like fighting terrorism by imprisoning ppl who wear che guevara t-shirts.

What you're really missing is -- those who own and display assault rifles aren't the demographic of people who commit acts of crime or violence anymore than those who buy che guevara t-shirts at hot topic are responsible for acts of terrorism.

Therefore, it makes no sense to impose stricter standards on automatic weapons -- as in terms of crime and violence those who own assault rifles are not the problem.

Statistically speaking, there is a near equal probability of being killed by a random bolt of lightning as there is a probability of being killed in a mass shooting. 

Will we pass laws, spend billions of dollars and make a major push to erect more lightning rods in the united states because of the massive death toll that lightning strikes inflict each and every year?

That may well be considered sensationalism and an overreaction.

Gun control is likewise sensationalist and an overreaction.  

Obama addressing the issue -- which claims about as many lives each year as random strikes of lightning is questionable at best.



AfterGlow said:


> Universal background checks on people buying assault weapons?
> THAT WOULD IMPOSE OUR FREEDOMZ HURR DURR!



I live in a state that has some of the most stringent background checks and oversight in terms of firearm regulation.

There are still plenty of people here who have fully automatic weapons.  

If they can smuggle illegal drugs into a country, they can smuggle illegal guns also.

This means notions of "harsher regulation" having an impact may have little basis in reality.  If we can't get rid of drugs, would we be able to get rid of guns?

Gun control and imposing harsher regulational standards isn't a solution to violence or crime anymore than illegalizing drugs and waging a so-called "war on drugs" was a solution to our "drug epidemic".

That's what most people are missing, they over simplify violence, crime and firearms into a black and white perspective whereby they believe media sensationalism that says issues like creating jobs, reducing the deficit and fixing healthcare are fundamentally "simple" things.

Well, if its so simple why do we still have no jobs, why is the deficit still growing at a massive rate and why do americans still not have decent healthcare?

The thing you have to understand is, the same people who promise that gun control or a higher degree of regulation will solve issues relating to violence and crime are the same people who have made zero progress on every other key issue on earth.

Gun control isn't as simple or black and white as the media portrays and kneejerk reactionism whereby we simply illegalize things or grant the government greater power and authority aren't necessarily the silver bullets that advertising and marketing people claim.


----------



## Blue (Jan 19, 2013)

The fucking moron had his thumb on the trigger holding the thing

That right there is why we need gun legislation. Not because of murders.

Because of fucking stupid people.


----------



## AfterGlow (Jan 19, 2013)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> Attempting to address violence or crime by banning assault weapons is like fighting terrorism by imprisoning ppl who wear che guevara t-shirts.
> 
> What you're really missing is -- those who own and display assault rifles aren't the demographic of people who commit acts of crime or violence anymore than those who buy che guevara t-shirts at hot topic are responsible for acts of terrorism.
> 
> ...



It was clear you hadn't got a clue what you're talking about when you started comparing the war on drugs/prohibition with gun bans, as if the two were even remotely comparable in any fucking way at all.

It's strange how the US is pretty much the only country in the world regularly suffering from school shootings (aside from Finland, a nation where weapons are also easily attainable by various loners and psychos) and psychos going on killing sprees with easily attainable assault weapons. But of course, this can't be solved with background checks, banning assault weapons or any fucking thing on the planet (according to the NRA side in the debate) because you could still obtain firearms illegally, and that means assault weapons need to be easily available to anybody over the counter, without those pesky background checks. Instead, lets arm EVERYBODY.

Also, do you have even the slightest clue about the difference in logistics of smuggling drugs and smuggling weapons? Do you think a lot of guys swallow condoms filled with AK47s? Do you think random people in society are illegally making weapons and selling them on the street? 

The sad truth of the matter is that the whole problem could actually be solved in a few easy, although totalitarian, steps (which would take a shitload of time). This will never happen though because of the moronic fucktards in NRA and similar organizations and the whole "derrr second amendment thou art holy".


----------



## Blue (Jan 19, 2013)

> It's strange how the US is pretty much the only country in the world regularly suffering from school shootings



Well, that's not even remotely true, but

It's starting to make me angry that people focus so hard on murders when it comes to gun violence and not on accidents and suicides which are 70% of all gun deaths in the US. 

It _doesn't fucking matter one fucking bit_ if guns prevent crimes because they cause more deaths through stupid people than through violent people.


----------



## Griever (Jan 19, 2013)

Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> Well, that's not even remotely true, but
> 
> It's starting to make me angry that people focus so hard on murders when it comes to gun violence and not on accidents and suicides which are 70% of all gun deaths in the US.
> 
> It _doesn't fucking matter one fucking bit_ if guns prevent crimes because they cause more deaths through stupid people than through violent people.



Suicide?, really?. Why do we care about Suicide?, that's the individuals choice, rather that is a shitty choice or not is not up to us. and that aside, i know of some methods people use to commit suicide and a gun is a fucking mercy. Poisons that eats a person from the inside out over the course of days (very long and very painful death) hanging, slit-wrists, suffocation.  If someone wants to kill themselves they're going to do it gun or no, and their options in regards to methods aren't limited either.


----------



## Sanity Check (Jan 19, 2013)

Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> The fucking moron had his thumb on the trigger holding the thing
> 
> That right there is why we need gun legislation. Not because of murders.
> 
> Because of fucking stupid people.



If only gun legislation cured stupidity.



AfterGlow said:


> It was clear you hadn't got a clue what you're talking about when you started comparing the war on drugs/prohibition with gun bans, as if the two were even remotely comparable in any fucking way at all.
> 
> It's strange how the US is pretty much the only country in the world regularly suffering from school shootings (aside from Finland, a nation where weapons are also easily attainable by various loners and psychos) and psychos going on killing sprees with easily attainable assault weapons. But of course, this can't be solved with background checks, banning assault weapons or any fucking thing on the planet (according to the NRA side in the debate) because you could still obtain firearms illegally, and that means assault weapons need to be easily available to anybody over the counter, without those pesky background checks. Instead, lets arm EVERYBODY.
> 
> ...



Drug smugglers have submarines, disguised ships, underground tunnel networks across the mexican border, aircraft & other means of transporting illegal, banned & contraband goods into the country.

It just seems as if the united states is the only country with these problems due to disproportionate media coverage.  

In cases where loners & psychos go on killing sprees there are often warning signs schools & police ignore.  Parents and students warned police the columbine shooters were planning an attack, and the police & school did nothing.  The colorado shooter -- he asked people if they would visit him in prison.

Totalitarianism is a bit off topic.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jan 19, 2013)

Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> The fucking moron had his thumb on the trigger holding the thing
> 
> That right there is why we need gun legislation. Not because of murders.
> 
> Because of fucking stupid people.



And why is that a problem? The gun is not pointed at anyone, not loaded and I assume the safety is on. Plus the way he's holding it, it would be pretty damn hard to put enough horizontal force on the thumb to actually pull the trigger.


----------



## Megaharrison (Jan 19, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> I find this guy to be the real, and an even bigger bigger jackass. Seriously, what's with people repeating retarded statements like this? Soviet Russia, came about partly *BECAUSE*of civilian revolt, and the authoritarian regime of Stalin in particular due to manipulation of internal politics and seizing of political power. Hitler took advantage of Germany's broken spirit after WWI, providing them a target to blame for their losses, all the while seizing more and more power as he gained popularity.



Not to mention that the Soviets suffered mass peasant armed revolts and basically had to kill them all. Was no process of civilians handing in their weapons then getting oppressed. They more or less got oppressed with their weapons...And it was all before Stalin (1921-1924 revolt period).

Guy shouldn't had his finger on the trigger guard in any regard. He made himself look like an idiot and ended up helping the Republicans. Though I wonder where he got that gun. Wooden thumbhole stocks go for a pretty penny.


----------



## Toby (Jan 19, 2013)

Not sure how I would respond. I also would have been very angry that a person could carry any gun into a public building without security taking it. In essence, a gunman could do the same to any US legislature, and that to me, is making terrorism easy. Too easy.

That being said, curbing firearm-related deaths by banning them might not be so helpful, as we pointed out in the debate thread using Wolfers data on gun ownership around the world. I think what matters is where you can bring your gun. To prevent murder however, you need to deal with the underlying causes of alienation, depression, etc. 

The most disappointing thing is that this is not discussed as the main issue. Both Dems and Reps act like morons by shoving blame onto gun manufacturers and each other. 



Griever said:


> Suicide?, really?. Why do we care about Suicide?, that's the individuals choice, rather that is a shitty choice or not is not up to us. and that aside, i know of some methods people use to commit suicide and a gun is a fucking mercy. Poisons that eats a person from the inside out over the course of days (very long and very painful death) hanging, slit-wrists, suffocation.  If someone wants to kill themselves they're going to do it gun or no, and their options in regards to methods aren't limited either.



I think this is a very interesting but incorrect way to handle suicide. 

If the argument is that suicide does not harm anybody but the person committing suicide, then that is strictly speaking okay if you are limiting "harm" to include only physical harm. But suicide is emotionally turbulent, stressful and damaging for all close personal relatives, communities and even strangers. All mammals respond negatively to suicide and it does affect society.

More importantly, societies where people are affluent, find work and housing easily have low suicide rates. It is definitely a social phenomenon, not just a personal choice. If making firearms less accessible lowers suicide rates, then I am all for it. 

I believe a government should make chemical suicide available for people with a just cause, but there is no doubt that firearms are a quick way out and detrimental to society. The potential value of a human being far exceeds the profit from a free arms market.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Jan 19, 2013)

The Space Cowboy said:


> In light of the recent mass shootings committed with such weapons, anyone with a concealed weapons permit who wasn't in on the stunt could have reasonably shot him dead.




Elegant solution.  Jackasses with guns shoot other jackasses with guns.  Preferably ending with the last two fatally wounding each other,

Could we perhaps set aside an island or something for your plan to minimize the number of innocents killed in crossfire?


----------



## Inuhanyou (Jan 19, 2013)

I may not have read the article correctly...but...doesn't this just prove the guy's point even more? That weapons like that should be banned because of stunts like this that may happen incidentally or non incidentally? 

Of course we have the gun lobby's shills in here so we can't have any common sense discourse either way about it


----------



## Ippy (Jan 19, 2013)

What's fucked up is that the NRA lobby basically bent over and fucked the ATF hard roughly ten years ago.

They have almost no power to actually enforce existing gun laws.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Jan 19, 2013)

Well its just like Wall Street and their attacks against the SEC, or the gas lobby and their attacks against the EPA. These things tasked with helping the public welfare have been suppressed for a while because of greed. That's just how it is.


----------



## Blue (Jan 19, 2013)

Saufsoldat said:


> And why is that a problem? The gun is not pointed at anyone, not loaded and I assume the safety is on. Plus the way he's holding it, it would be pretty damn hard to put enough horizontal force on the thumb to actually pull the trigger.



This right here is why stupid people kill more people with guns than violent people.
"Why does it matter if I have my finger on the trigger? It's not loaded LOL"

Until one day it is loaded.
You don't. Fuck around. With guns. Ever.


> Suicide?, really?. Why do we care about Suicide?, that's the individuals choice, rather that is a shitty choice or not is not up to us.


Because 99% of the time, the individual is not in a healthy state of mind when they make that choice.
Without guns, the only other good way to off oneself is jumping from something high, and most people don't have the stones to do that. Remove guns and prevent a great many people who could be treated from comitting suicide before help finds them.


----------



## AfterGlow (Jan 19, 2013)

Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> Because 99% of the time, the individual is not in a healthy state of mind when they make that choice.
> Without guns, the only other good way to off oneself is jumping from something high, and most people don't have the stones to do that. Remove guns and prevent a great many people who could be treated from comitting suicide before help finds them.



Please, there are plenty of ways to commit suicide; overdose, hang yourself, slit your wrists, sit in your garage and let the engine run, jump in front of a train, swim as far out to sea as possible (so you won't make it back) etc.

People wanting to kill themselves will find ways to kill themselves (as they do in countries where weapons aren't found in every street corner). It's like, 50% of suicides in the US are by guns, 10% in Australia. The numbers would shift, the rate wouldn't go down.

The whole suicide sidetrack is just that; a sidetrack. People will kill themselves regardless of how easy they can get a gun.


----------



## Unlosing Ranger (Jan 19, 2013)

[YOUTUBE]5Qc8jJ0TjSY[/YOUTUBE]
[YOUTUBE]BoM6IFiyRjE[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Blue (Jan 19, 2013)

AfterGlow said:


> Please, there are plenty of ways to commit suicide; overdose, hang yourself, slit your wrists, sit in your garage and let the engine run, jump in front of a train, swim as far out to sea as possible (so you won't make it back) etc.


Yeah but those don't work.

Overdose is probably the shittiest thing to try, because you're just going to suffer and probably live anyway. Hanging doesn't work unless you break your neck or can't get out of it, both of which are difficult. Slitting wrists is shit tier, most people don't even know how. 
Carbon monoxide can work, if you have a car and a garage and live alone. 

Jumping in front of a train is as hardcore as jumping off a building; most people can't. 
I hadn't heard of swimming before. That would be a terrible way to die, anyone intelligent wouldn't do it.

Anyway the point is I know what I'm talking about. Successful suicide attempts are kind of rare, and most of the successes on the first try are from guns.

It's not a side point, it's important.

A lot more important than murder, even without examining accidents which are the worst of all.


----------



## Megaharrison (Jan 19, 2013)

In Israel if you want to die you hop a series of warning fences and walk across a minefield along any of our borders. People have done it before.

Go out with a bang


----------



## Doge (Jan 19, 2013)

Saufsoldat said:


> And why is that a problem? The gun is not pointed at anyone, not loaded and I assume the safety is on. Plus the way he's holding it, it would be pretty damn hard to put enough horizontal force on the thumb to actually pull the trigger.



I would never trust anyone like you with a gun if you're going to think like that.  That kind of thinking is just ASKING for an gun accident.

*You don't toy around with guns, ever.*  Especially in a room full of delegates.  It's necessary to handle guns in such a manner because it will prevent accidents if you take the necessary precautions.  

If you did that in a gun range or near anyone with knowledge on guns, you'd probably get yelled at for being a complete idiot.


----------



## Doge (Jan 19, 2013)

AfterGlow said:


> Please, there are plenty of ways to commit suicide; overdose, hang yourself, slit your wrists, sit in your garage and let the engine run, jump in front of a train, swim as far out to sea as possible (so you won't make it back) etc.
> 
> People wanting to kill themselves will find ways to kill themselves (as they do in countries where weapons aren't found in every street corner). It's like, 50% of suicides in the US are by guns, 10% in Australia. The numbers would shift, the rate wouldn't go down.
> 
> The whole suicide sidetrack is just that; a sidetrack. People will kill themselves regardless of how easy they can get a gun.



There is nothing faster, more painless, and easier to kill yourself with other than a gun.  You have no time to regret your actions and it's almost 100% guaranteed effective.  People can survive falls, sleeping pills, etc. some of the time, but a gun would end it instantly.


----------



## AfterGlow (Jan 19, 2013)

Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> Yeah but those don't work.



Heh, tell that to all the people who's killed themselves that way.



> Overdose is probably the shittiest thing to try, because you're just going to suffer and probably live anyway.



Down more than enough sleeping pills, make sure you're in a place nobody can find you; you're dead.



> Hanging doesn't work unless you break your neck or can't get out of it, both of which are difficult.



Actually, my mother's best friend's son killed himself by hanging/suffocating.
He actually knelt on a table, he could have stood up at any moment if he wanted to abort it.



> Slitting wrists is shit tier, most people don't even know how.
> Carbon monoxide can work, if you have a car and a garage and live alone.



It's a classic. 



> Jumping in front of a train is as hardcore as jumping off a building; most people can't.



It's actually one of the most common ways people off themselves here in Sweden. You see, once a person has decided to kill themselves, they won't fear going through with it. Sure, nobody wants a prolonged, painful death, but weapons are close to impossible to get in Sweden, yet we have a shitload of suicides here.



> I hadn't heard of swimming before. That would be a terrible way to die, anyone intelligent wouldn't do it.



I've heard drowning is a rather pleasant death.



> Anyway the point is I know what I'm talking about. Successful suicide attempts are kind of rare, and most of the successes on the first try are from guns.



Might be true in the US because of the weapon laws, but a total ban on weapons (like we have in Sweden) does jack shit for suicide rates.



> It's not a side point, it's important.



Yes, and no.

Yes, guns are the leading way (in the US) people kill themselves.

No, because people kill themselves successfully in other countries where guns are hard to come by.

People would just find other ways to do it without guns.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Jan 19, 2013)

People are more likely to go through with suicide if they have guns though


----------



## Doge (Jan 19, 2013)

Elim Rawne said:


> People are more likely to go through with suicide if they have guns though



Exactly, no time for recovery or regrets.


----------



## Bender (Jan 19, 2013)

The fuck is wrong with this dumbass?


----------



## Mintaka (Jan 19, 2013)

Looks more like a strange kind of publicity stunt to me.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jan 19, 2013)

Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> This right here is why stupid people kill more people with guns than violent people.
> "Why does it matter if I have my finger on the trigger? It's not loaded LOL"
> 
> Until one day it is loaded.
> You don't. Fuck around. With guns. Ever.





kresh said:


> I would never trust anyone like you with a gun if you're going to think like that.  That kind of thinking is just ASKING for an gun accident.
> 
> *You don't toy around with guns, ever.*  Especially in a room full of delegates.  It's necessary to handle guns in such a manner because it will prevent accidents if you take the necessary precautions.
> 
> If you did that in a gun range or near anyone with knowledge on guns, you'd probably get yelled at for being a complete idiot.



Firstly, I don't have or need a gun, my penis size is perfectly fine.

Secondly, how was he endangering anybody when there's no threat of him pulling the trigger and even if he did and the gun was loaded, there's no threat of anyone getting hit.

Thirdly, it's his right to hold the weapon however he sees fit. I don't think there are laws against having your thumb on the trigger guard in Virginia.


----------



## strongarm85 (Jan 19, 2013)

*St. Pete man puts gun to head to show how safe his gun is, kills himself.*



> An 18-year-old man died when he put a gun to his head to show how safe it was and the weapon fired, killing him, according to the St. Petersburg police.
> 
> Alexander Xavier Shaw, of 733 71 Ave. N., died about 6:30 p.m. Wednesday as he was showing the weapon to family and friends, police said.
> 
> ...



Source: 

I heard a rumor somewhere that he was trying to make a video to upload youtube, which is how they knew it was an accident and what his intentions were, either way, it shouldn't have happened.

Revolvers don't have safety mechanism like other guns have because of their simple design, so the standard practice for responsible revolver ownership is to leave the first chamber empty so that you have to cock the gun twice to get it to fire.

Of course the number one rule of responsible gun ownership is to treat every gun as if it were loaded at all times unless the gun was physically capable of firing a bullet. The Moral of the story here is don't point your gun at anything you do not wish kill, and that includes yourself.


----------



## Stunna (Jan 19, 2013)

Naturally.**


----------



## Sora (Jan 19, 2013)

not surprised


----------



## Coteaz (Jan 19, 2013)

THANK YOU, DARWIN


----------



## stream (Jan 19, 2013)

Yeah, I think we have a prime candidate for the Darwin award.


----------



## Ultra Instinct Vegito (Jan 19, 2013)

What an idiot...


----------



## Mider T (Jan 19, 2013)

BOOM! HEADSHOT!


----------



## Doge (Jan 19, 2013)

Saufsoldat said:


> Firstly, I don't have or need a gun, my penis size is perfectly fine.



I'm laughing so hard right now.  ha. ha.



Saufsoldat said:


> Secondly, how was he endangering anybody when there's no threat of him pulling the trigger and even if he did and the gun was loaded, there's no threat of anyone getting hit.



Are you seriously implying it's completely acceptable to _hold a loaded gun with your finger on the trigger in a room full of delegates?_ 

If you have your finger on the trigger, there is always a chance that you could accidentally pull on it.  When handling a gun, you take the MOST SAFE approach at all times.  That is why the manufacturers *put a trigger guard onto it.*  Additionally, you want to take your seemingly unnecessary precautions when handling a weapon so there will be minimal chance for unwanted injury.  It's the same as using goggles or wearing gloves when operating a bunsen burner in a lab, why would you need goggles if you know exactly what you need to do and had only a small window for mistake?

And yes, there is a threat of someone getting hit.  He can tilt it even 20 degrees and it could be liable to hit someone or ricochet.  

Finally, I find it appalling that people would argue for giving out license to responsible citizens and administering teaching for guns, and yet think that holding a loaded weapon with your finger on the trigger up into the air is completely acceptable.  



Saufsoldat said:


> Thirdly, it's his right to hold the weapon however he sees fit. I don't think there are laws against having your thumb on the trigger guard in Virginia.



And we also have the right to call him a fucking dumbass in Virginia.


----------



## Hwon (Jan 19, 2013)

Yeah, it is sadly ironic that they would attack him for his lack of gun safety when the government for all practical purposes can't legislate or mandate proper and safe handling.  The only viable proactive solution to idiots with guns is to limit what guns people can carry.  

Of course the attack was a red herring anyway to side step the issue of assault weapons.  In that sense attacking him for having his finger inside the trigger guard makes about as much sense as praising James Eagan Holmes or Adam Lanza for using proper gun safety whilst they proceeded to commit mass murder.


----------



## Wesley (Jan 19, 2013)

Did he exercise trigger discipline and keep it pointed at the ground?

Besides that, I hope he goes to jail for sneaking a gun past security.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Jan 19, 2013)

Wesley said:


> Besides that, I hope he goes to jail for sneaking a gun past security.


You're in favor of restrictions on when and where a man can carry his gun?

Why do you hate the Constitution you fascist overbearing gun grabber?


----------



## Hwon (Jan 19, 2013)

kresh said:


> Finally, I find it appalling that people would argue for giving out license to responsible citizens and administering teaching for guns, and yet think that holding a loaded weapon with your finger on the trigger up into the air is completely acceptable.



I'm pretty sure the argument is that it was completely legal, which is a problem and leads to the point about requiring lessons and a license.    



kresh said:


> And we also have the right to call him a fucking dumbass in Virginia.



And dumbasses have 2nd Amendment rights.


----------



## Wesley (Jan 19, 2013)

EvilMoogle said:


> You're in favor of restrictions on when and where a man can carry his gun?
> 
> Why do you hate the Constitution you fascist overbearing gun grabber?



No, I'm in favor of a lawbreaker going to jail.


----------



## Treerone (Jan 19, 2013)

What a moron.


----------



## Hand Banana (Jan 19, 2013)

Guess he's not... head of the household.


----------



## Hatifnatten (Jan 19, 2013)

Hand Banana said:


> Guess he's not... head of the household.


Guess he... didn't use his head properly.


----------



## very bored (Jan 19, 2013)

Wesley said:


> No, I'm in favor of a lawbreaker going to jail.



I think what he did was dumb, and that it should be illegal, but what action did he take that actually broke a law?  



> The AK-47 that Morrissey brought on the floor was borrowed from someone else, his office told The Washington Examiner. *He told Capitol Police about his plan in advance. Members of the General Assembly, law enforcement personnel or anyone with a concealed weapon permit is allowed to bring a gun into the Capitol.*


----------



## Hand Banana (Jan 19, 2013)

Hatifnatten said:


> Guess he... didn't use his head properly.



That's a good one. HIGH FIVE BRO.


----------



## Wesley (Jan 19, 2013)

Guns are illegal in DC.


----------



## Mintaka (Jan 19, 2013)

Good job.  *golf clap*


----------



## very bored (Jan 19, 2013)

Wesley said:


> Guns are illegal in DC.






> A Richmond-area lawmaker brandished an AK-47 on the floor of the Virginia House of Delegates on Thursday in a wild stunt aimed at rallying support for tougher gun laws.



The Virginia House of Delagates is in Richmond, Virginia.  It's at least an hour away from DC.


----------



## MinatoRider (Jan 19, 2013)

Hand Banana said:


> Guess he's not...(putting sunglasses) head of the household.





[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mR3jnW2kcUs[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Hand Banana (Jan 19, 2013)

MinatoRider said:


> [YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mR3jnW2kcUs[/YOUTUBE]



You made my day.


----------



## Hand Banana (Jan 19, 2013)

I expected Mintaka to be the first to post that.


----------



## Ruby (Jan 19, 2013)

Well, at least he didn't test out his theory on anyone else.


----------



## Mintaka (Jan 19, 2013)

Hand Banana said:


> I expected Mintaka to be the first to post that.


Nah, I think a simple disdainful remark is what's needed here.  It's that pathetic.


----------



## Gunners (Jan 19, 2013)

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha *Wipes tear from my eye* you couldn't make this stuff up.


----------



## Roman (Jan 19, 2013)

*Wants to prove guns are safe*

*Kills himself*


----------



## drache (Jan 19, 2013)

kresh said:


> Are you seriously implying it's completely acceptable to _hold a loaded gun with your finger on the trigger in a room full of delegates?_


 
IT WAS NOT LOADED

Further he praticed fairly good gun safety all things considered. The fact is holding a 'long rifle' (ie a gun over 2 feet long and 10 lbs) is fairly hard to do without having your finger in the trigger guard like that. And frankly maybe even that is nervous or upset about that should think about WHY they are.




kresh said:


> And we also have the right to call him a fucking dumbass in Virginia.


 
odd we have taht right to call you that too


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jan 19, 2013)

kresh said:


> Are you seriously implying it's completely acceptable to _hold a loaded gun with your finger on the trigger in a room full of delegates?_



It wasn't loaded and he didn't have a finger on the trigger, he had a thumb on the trigger guard.



> And we also have the right to call him a fucking dumbass in Virginia.



For exercising his constitutional rights? You're just being silly now.





Wesley said:


> Guns are illegal in DC.





And what, pray tell, does this have to do with Virginia?


----------



## Roman (Jan 19, 2013)

Bryan Paulsen said:


> Gun control advocates that insist the State retains ownership are endorsing class warfare. The proletariat against the bourgeoisie. It is, in fact, a pretty classical demonstration of that dichotomy. The bourgeoisie have special rights denied the _proletariat_.



Sorry but I don't think anyone here is saying the state should retain ownership. I think everyone is saying assault rifles and their production ought to be banned outright. That's completely different from what you're making CTK's and everyone else's argument to be.



Bryan Paulsen said:


> The chance, however big/small it may be, isn't really an important issue. It's tangential, and historically verifiable as relevant. That said, nobody has any fantasies of overthrowing the government. *This is about whether the individual has the right to tools of self-defense that are on par with what the State has*, and whether they could ever be potentially aimed at a tyrannical State.
> 
> The State earns criticism when it endorses class warfare, instead of protecting the rights of individuals in the event they are violated, which is *all* the State is _ever_ supposed to do lest it begin intruding on the rights of individuals. When it _does_ violate the rights of others, then it is the duty of the citizen to push back.



If the chance is so small that it can be deemed insignificant, which just happens to be the case in the US and the vast majority of western countries at least (as I don't doubt we can safely apply this to all countries but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt), there's no need to be so paranoid about govt takeover of the country. As for people having tools "of self-defense," which really are just tools of murder, regular people can never have what you hope for. People will not have nukes. They will not have drones. They will not have aircrafts. The list goes on. You're being delusional if you think the second amendment rights say people are allowed to have as much weaponry as the state.



Bryan Paulsen said:


> You do realize, of course, that all of us 2nd Amendment supporters haven't fired a single shot, nor have we showed any sign of aggressive intent. There is a reason that our position is summed up thusly: _Molon Labe_. Our position, with regard to our guns is defense - if the State comes for them, then it is an attack on our person. That is the position from which we negotiate, and given we can defend our position on entirely logical grounds there will be _no_ negotiations with people that think what we own should be forcibly taken from us. Nor will we deprive future generations of exercising their natural rights.



 And under no circumstances can I really see this as a logical position for which you defend your right to retain tools of murder. Let's not pretend they're anything else. They're designed to kill and nothing else. The right to kill others is not at all a natural one either. The right to protect what is yours, perhaps, but killing others for it is too extreme a measure.



Bryan Paulsen said:


> Democracy can be tyrannical, which is precisely why we are not a democracy. However, abrogation of a document that merely enumerates our natural rights, is unacceptable. It's not that the Bill of Rights and Constitution are inherently special in their own right - they are a means to an end - it's that it puts to word what is man's right by his nature.



Please tell me how a democracy can be tyrannical.

But since you're playing this game, let's say that the US is a Republic precisely because democracies can be tyrannical. In that case, doesn't that make the chances of the US becoming tyrannical even less significant than even I'm making them out to be? What's the point of guns if the US is designed specifically not to become dystopic?



Bryan Paulsen said:


> You do realize, of course, most of these activities were State-driven, correct?
> 
> Democide. You will do yourself a favor by studying it.



You do realize none of that is happening in the US or any other first world countries, right?

Common sense. You will do yourself a favor by using it.

Also, these "state-driven" activities were commonly approved, not simply accepted.



Bryan Paulsen said:


> No right trumps any other right, as they inherent to nature. There's not a single 2nd Amendment supporter that believes it trumps the 1st.
> 
> I hope you realize that crime rates have been falling towards rates seen in the 1960s in the USA. Never mind that more homicides are committed with knives and fists than guns in the United States, yearly.
> 
> There's also the issue of gun violence being higher in areas with notoriously strict gun control (ie: Chicago), and urbanized areas in general.



Let's see.


If you do the math based on the stats above, you'll actually see you're wrong. Violent crime by population has increased significantly since 1960 by 2011, and murder by population, while having declined, was not by a considerable amount as you're making it out to be. As for more murder being done through knives and fists.......LOL WUT???!!! . My previous link actually says there were more murders than 14k so let's take that figure instead just for kicks.

Total Murders 2009: 15399 (figure taken from first link)
Total Firearm murders 2009: 9203 (figure taken from second link)

(9203/15399)*100=59.76%

If I took the figure for total murders from the second link, the result would've been 66.90%.

Therefore, the number of gun-related murders in the US in 2009 was between 60% and 67%. Well above half the number of murders. Frankly, your assertion that most murders in the US are caused by knives and fists is not just laughable. It's pure bullshittery.



Bryan Paulsen said:


> You care for people by supporting their rights, not by restricting them.



You care for people by ensuring their safety and ensuring no one abuses their rights. Owning assault weapons and hunting rifles for the sake of self defense is, to me, an abuse of the second amendment (which shouldn't exist to begin with anyways).



Bryan Paulsen said:


> No. *I'm clearly starting attacks on my person will be met with force*. If enough people do it, and there's a large enough movement to abrogate the rights of people that won't tolerate such incursions, then blood will be shed.
> 
> That's reality.
> 
> _Molon labe_.



Oh I see. And that's not a sign of aggressive intent? Maybe you should take a break from the weights. The testosterone is getting to your brain.



Bryan Paulsen said:


> I have never, in my life, been fearful around a person practicing open carry, whether it's a cop or civilian. Your projection is an issue you have to deal with, and isn't endemic to everyone.
> 
> You should try educating yourself not just about guns, but about lawful gun owners. Try to figure out if your fear is justified.



My fear is aptly justified. I do not want to be around a person carrying a weapon that can kill me suddenly, cleanly and efficiently without any excessive effort from its owner. The fact you're not afraid is actually already frightening on its own.


----------



## Linkdarkside (Jan 19, 2013)

Rednecks.q


----------



## Blue (Jan 19, 2013)

People acting like this is unusual. It happens 20-30 times a day.


----------



## Bryan Paulsen (Jan 19, 2013)

Freedan said:


> Sorry but I don't think anyone here is saying the state should retain ownership. I think everyone is saying assault rifles and their production ought to be banned outright. That's completely different from what you're making CTK's and everyone else's argument to be.



The police and military are the State. Most American gun-control advocates insist on keeping them in the hands of those two entities.

You are an outlier if you think the State is going to give them up altogether. They're not, because a monopoly on force isn't going to weaken itself.



> If the chance is so small that it can be deemed insignificant, which just happens to be the case in the US and the vast majority of western countries at least (as I don't doubt we can safely apply this to all countries but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt), there's no need to be so paranoid about govt takeover of the country. As for people having tools "of self-defense," which really are just tools of murder, regular people can never have what you hope for. People will not have nukes. They will not have drones. They will not have aircrafts. The list goes on. You're being delusional if you think the second amendment rights say people are allowed to have as much weaponry as the state.



Nukes are not a self-defense tool. I've been over this repeatedly, the issue comes back to collateral damage even when used precisely. Neither do the hellfire missiles used by drones qualify. That's the _fallacy of equivocation_.

Guns qualify as a means of self-defense, meaning there isn't an intellectually consistent reason to ban them.



> And under no circumstances can I really see this as a logical position for which you defend your right to retain tools of murder. Let's not pretend they're anything else. They're designed to kill and nothing else. The right to kill others is not at all a natural one either. The right to protect what is yours, perhaps, but killing others for it is too extreme a measure.



Stating that you will respond to the abrogation of your rights with violence isn't _aggressive intent_, it is assertiveness. It's the same thing that would happen if you stole something of mine - I would beat the shit out of you. Anyone of a rational mind will recognize that for what it is - self-defense. Aggressiveness is stating I would beat the shit out of you if you don't give me your shoes.

All weapons are designed with the idea of nullifying your attacker. The possibility of killing them is moot due to aggression initiated against your person rendering their civil rights violable.



> Please tell me how a democracy can be tyrannical.



Tyranny of the majority. More specifically, the majority giving itself special privileges denied to minorities.



> But since you're playing this game, let's say that the US is a Republic precisely because democracies can be tyrannical. In that case, doesn't that make the chances of the US becoming tyrannical even less significant than even I'm making them out to be? What's the point of guns if the US is designed specifically not to become dystopic?



Hardly. A monopoly on force can easily override the Republic (see: Rome).

This idea that because the US probably won't turn absolutely totalitarian, that it should have the absolute trust of the people is outright insanity given recorded history.

And again - the chances of it turning tyrannical isn't even really the point. The point is that it is well within the rights of the individual to own that weaponry as a means of self-defense.



> You do realize none of that is happening in the US or any other first world countries, right?
> 
> Common sense. You will do yourself a favor by using it.



History is often puncuated with briefs period of relative peace. It's not particularly remarkable.

Again - google democide, and bother to actually study history. "Common sense" fails in the face of historical fact.



> Also, these "state-driven" activities were commonly approved, not simply accepted.



Ass-backwards logic. The monopoly on force does what it wants, and is hardly responsible to the people. This forms the basis of Authoritarianism, and is why Authoritarian States had the worst records of genocide and democide.

Unless, of course, you are blaming the German people _carte blanche_ for the Holocaust, for example.



> Let's see... <errata snipped>



Firstly, two admissions of error on my part. The general decrease in crime to 1960s levels is in Arizona, not the USA. Although, given Arizona's lax gun laws this should demonstrate why the statistics, by themselves, mean very little.

Secondly, on your statistics:



Notice that the subject of the ban, assault rifles, rank lower than fists in terms of homicide statistics. That was the point I was alluding to, and failed to make. If you're worried about gun violence in America, it's handguns.

On the subject of banning handguns, they fall under the same category as assault rifles - a self-defense tool, and are not up for banning for any logically consistent reason.



> You care for people by ensuring their safety and ensuring no one abuses their rights. Owning assault weapons and hunting rifles for the sake of self defense is, to me, an abuse of the second amendment (which shouldn't exist to begin with anyways).



You cannot ensure nobody abuses the rights of others. It is logically impossible, because you do not possess ownership of others. What you _can_ do is react to transgressions against rights.

The 2nd Amendment isn't abused by owning rifles. Your failure to understand _why_ the 2nd Amendment exists is two-fold:

#1) Your knowledge of the history of States with an absolute monopoly on force is lacking. Google democide, again. If you want a *really* easy example, look up Turkey's gun-control policies it placed on the Armenians, and what immediately followed.

#2) You have no knowledge of what constitutes _natural rights_. The Bill of Rights merely put them in words, and isn't particularly remarkable beyond that.



> Oh I see. And that's not a sign of aggressive intent? Maybe you should take a break from the weights. The testosterone is getting to your brain.



Saying that if something is done to me, then I will respond accordingly is not aggressive intent. It's entirely defensive, and asserting the inviolability of my rights.

Maybe you should try hitting the weights. It might give you just enough confidence to stop fearing everything.



> My fear is aptly justified. I do not want to be around a person carrying a weapon that can kill me suddenly, cleanly and efficiently without any excessive effort from its owner. The fact you're not afraid is actually already frightening on its own.



Do you tremble in fear whenever a bigger guy is around you? What about someone with combat training? What about someone with a hunting knife?

You fear pointless shit. None of it justified. If you fear the possibility of someone killing you, then you would do well to remember they could just as well kill you with an ordinary object when you aren't looking. Someone simply carrying a gun doesn't scare the shit out of any rational individual.

"Fear always springs from ignorance." - Ralph Waldo Emerson


----------



## Megaharrison (Jan 19, 2013)

The Space Cowboy said:
			
		

> As an aside, does the IDF use flamethrowers?
> 
> Real flame throwers, as opposed to the fantasy kind, are mostly for clearing out holes in the ground, controlled burns, or flame weeding.



Yes and no. Engineering corps and IDF home front command uses them for biological weapons decontamination ops. They're launched from NBC-sealed armored vehicles. Otherwise they haven't been used offensively since 1973 when we retook the Suez Canal.

Flamethrowers are pretty obsolete now since thermos arid and napalm warheads on RPG systems came into play. Only the Chinese, iranians, and North Koreans still use classical ones to my knowledge.


----------



## Doge (Jan 19, 2013)

drache said:


> IT WAS NOT LOADED


 
NO SHIT!

That's how gun accidents happen, everyone thinks it's completely fine to wave a gun around because they "know" it's not loaded.  This is how accidents happen, albeit rare, but it definitely happens.  



drache said:


> Further he praticed fairly good gun safety all things considered. The fact is holding a 'long rifle' (ie a gun over 2 feet long and 10 lbs) is fairly hard to do without having your finger in the trigger guard like that. And frankly maybe even that is nervous or upset about that should think about WHY they are.


 
Brandishing it with one arm pointing it in the air where you can clearly see it's not well controlled, wonderful.  

And you want to know why people are nervous about it?  Because they clearly saw that he was practicing unsafe gun handling and practically showing kids how NOT to hold a weapon.  You always treat a gun like it's loaded, and you never point it out into the air like that.


----------



## Doge (Jan 19, 2013)

Saufsoldat said:


> It wasn't loaded and he didn't have a finger on the trigger, he had a thumb on the trigger guard.



You are supposed to always treat a gun like it's loaded.  You know why many accidents happen?  Some kid/person thinks it isn't loaded, but then the gun has one in the chamber or is actually loaded and they end up hurting someone.

Take as LITTLE risk as possible so that human error will have no chance of rearing its ugly head.  



Saufsoldat said:


> For exercising his constitutional rights? You're just being silly now.



It's also constitutional to be a member of the KKK, tell the families of dead soldiers their son's going to hell, and to say "God hates ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".)".

Constitutionality has nothing to do with being a dumbass in this case.  If you want to be an idiot, it's your right to.  But you'll tarnish your figure indefinitely for doing it.


----------



## Abanikochan (Jan 19, 2013)

Geez, it must be  or something.


----------



## LesExit (Jan 19, 2013)

Wow...thats pretty sad. But that's such an idiotic thing to do. Aren't you always supposed to treat the gun as if it is loaded? Very stupid decision.


----------



## Lady Hinata (Jan 19, 2013)

:rofl
Wowwww, that sucks! ​


----------



## PureWIN (Jan 19, 2013)

I feel terrible at laughing at a man's unfortunate death, but really?


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Jan 19, 2013)

As someone who really couldn’t give  much of as shit about Gun control/safety in Murica, I just cannot help but feel the Pro-Gun lobby aren’t bringing much to the table with their – ahem – ‘defence’.


----------



## Kira Yamato (Jan 19, 2013)

*5 accidentally shot at gun shows in North Carolina, Ohio, Indiana*

*5 accidentally shot at gun shows in North Carolina, Ohio, Indiana*​


> *Five people were wounded in accidents at gun shows in North Carolina, Ohio and Indiana on Saturday,* according to authorities.
> 
> In Raleigh, N.C., authorities said three people were wounded when a loaded shotgun accidentally discharged at the Dixie Gun and Knife Show at the N.C. State Fairgrounds.
> 
> ...


----------



## EvilMoogle (Jan 19, 2013)

Wesley said:


> No, I'm in favor of a lawbreaker going to jail.


So you think that if Congress passes a law banning firearms owned by the public then everyone that owns a firearm should be rounded up and arrested?

Frankly you sicken me you communist-nazi-Constituation-hating-liberal-pansy.

Personally I am a staunch believer that the Constitution guarantees that every red-blooded sociopath should be able to buy a grenade launcher and proudly carry it around through the capital building.


----------



## wibisana (Jan 19, 2013)

when I show my "gun" 
if i accidentally shot her (inside)
I'm screwed.


on topic
why would you load gun in show anyway?


----------



## Bioness (Jan 19, 2013)

Saw this earlier, wanted to post it, but felt we had enough gun threads.

People are retarded.


----------



## PDQ (Jan 19, 2013)

Kira Yamato said:


> By Saturday evening, the event's website clearly stipulated: "No personal firearms are to be brought into the show."



But what about their 2nd amendment rights!


----------



## Smiley (Jan 19, 2013)

People get injured by farm equipment. Let's ban farming.


----------



## wibisana (Jan 19, 2013)

Smiley said:


> People get injured by farm equipment. Let's ban farming.



tell me when your tractor accidentally run over 3 people.


----------



## Doge (Jan 19, 2013)

PDQ said:


> But what about their 2nd amendment rights!



Private event, that's why the TSA can violate your privacy.  You go by their terms.



> tell me when your tractor accidentally run over 3 people.


----------



## Jon Moxley (Jan 19, 2013)

So guns aren't expected to hurt people ever?


----------



## Smiley (Jan 19, 2013)

wibisana said:


> tell me when your tractor accidentally run over 3 people.



I can barely even bring myself to make a sarcastic reply about farm equipment never having killed more than one person.


----------



## Doge (Jan 19, 2013)

EvilMoogle said:


> So you think that if Congress passes a law banning firearms owned by the public then everyone that owns a firearm should be rounded up and arrested?
> 
> Frankly you sicken me you communist-nazi-Constituation-hating-liberal-pansy.
> 
> Personally I am a staunch believer that the Constitution guarantees that every red-blooded sociopath should be able to buy a grenade launcher and proudly carry it around through the capital building.


----------



## Netorie (Jan 19, 2013)

We should ban subway trains too since ya know, they keep killing people lately and all. 

On topic though, what the fuck. Too many stories like this just popping up out of nowhere.


----------



## LesExit (Jan 19, 2013)

Well what do you expect? Dangerous weapons put in human hands. Someones always going to get hurt....


----------



## wibisana (Jan 20, 2013)

seriously? even I'll die if I crash my Van to brick-fence. 
I said tractor run over/hit people then they die. not you ride something and hit tractor then you die.


----------



## TSC (Jan 20, 2013)

Netorie said:


> On topic though, what the fuck. Too many stories like this just popping up out of nowhere.



It gotta be fad now. It just gotta be.


----------



## Bender (Jan 20, 2013)

"Hurr durr guns don't need to be regulated"


----------



## makeoutparadise (Jan 20, 2013)

It's become more and more like NRA and it's supporters are like the husband who doesn't know what they're doing and and the anti-gun advocates are the concerned wife trying to convince him not to do it.

"Relax Honey I know what I'm doing!!!"

"Honey I don't think tha-"

I SAID I GOT THIS!!!!


----------



## Burke (Jan 20, 2013)

eh, shouldnt be considered news
also get a smaller ava plz <3


----------



## Onomatopoeia (Jan 20, 2013)




----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 20, 2013)

Some of the responses here are stupid. Guns, unlike subways, or tractors are specifically designed to kill. That's their purpose. These people are lucky the guns failed in that respects.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 20, 2013)




----------



## Mintaka (Jan 20, 2013)

I didn't realize tractors and subways were WEAPONS.

There is the difference.


----------



## Brotha Yasuji (Jan 20, 2013)

TSC said:


> It gotta be fad now. It just gotta be.



Well of course. Before it was teen suicides, and before that gay bullying.

And, just like those 2 topics and all the ones before them, this one will (Unfortunately) be put on the back-burner and then forgotten once the next one comes up.


----------



## makeoutparadise (Jan 20, 2013)

Mintaka said:


> I didn't realize tractors and subways were WEAPONS.
> 
> There is the difference.



Mintaka clearly you haven't read the news lately about these angsty and impressionable teens these days. 

Storming into their schools with tractors killing people left and right after playing too may of them violent and graphic agricultural equpment management video games like farmville and such.


----------



## Bender (Jan 20, 2013)

makeoutparadise said:


> It's become more and more like NRA and it's supporters are like the husband who doesn't know what they're doing and and the anti-gun advocates are the concerned wife trying to convince him not to do it.
> 
> "Relax Honey I know what I'm doing!!!"
> 
> ...



Beautiful analogy


----------



## Unlosing Ranger (Jan 20, 2013)




----------



## Unlosing Ranger (Jan 20, 2013)

Abanikochan said:


> Geez, it must be  or something.



Why are these gun stories just coming in all at once now?
Seriously?


----------



## Meruem (Jan 20, 2013)

I feel kind of bad for laughing.


----------



## neko-sennin (Jan 20, 2013)

And this year's Darwin Award goes to... 

The First Rule of gun safety is that you DO NOT EVER point a gun at something unless you're willing to destroy it. 

And (it should go without saying) are willing to take responsibility for destroying it.



Unlosing Ranger said:


> Why are these gun stories just coming in all at once now?
> Seriously?



Sensationalism.

When "guns" stop being a hot topic, the Media will stop digging every little gun incident out of its buttcrack. There will also be fewer jackasses looking for attention involving guns, and then it will go back to the usual statistical buzz it's always been.


----------



## Roman (Jan 20, 2013)

I'll get to the rest of your post in a bit but there's something that caught my eye.



Bryan Paulsen said:


> Secondly, on your statistics:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You're prolly misunderstanding me/taking me for one of those people who think assault rifles are causing 60% of total murder. I was referring to FIREARMS. That means, yes, assault rifles. AND shotguns. AND handguns. AND other guns. You seem to have forgotten I'm one of those people who, in the long run, wants the second amendment to be revised completely such that guns no longer exist among civilians and officers alike in light of the fact TOTAL homicide rates in places where guns are prohibited are far lower than the US.

_2011 statistics_

Total murder: 12664
FIREARMS (assault weapons, handguns et al): 8583

(8589/12664)*100=67.8%

68% of all murder cases are caused by FIREARMS. In 2009, that was 66.9%, so you quoting that part of my post with an "errata snipped" was just plain stupid because clearly, it wasn't errata. Thank you.

And no, handguns aren't listed under the same category as rifles. Do you see that cell above the one in which "rifles" is written? Yes, it says "HANDGUNS." I've said this before and I'll say it again so that I', completely clear with you. I want all guns to be banned in the long run. I realize this may take decades given the gun culture in the US. Banning assault rifles is a first step in taking on the gun culture due to the fact rifles are more of a luxury than anything. No one will feasibly use them out of necessity, and your own numbers indicate criminals are less partial to them, something I am very much aware of.

Like I said, I will reply to the rest shortly.

NOTE: The above calculations are all done with figures from the link YOU provided.


----------



## Unlosing Ranger (Jan 20, 2013)

neko-sennin said:


> Sensationalism.
> 
> When "guns" stop being a hot topic, the Media will stop digging every little gun incident out of its buttcrack. There will also be fewer jackasses looking for attention involving guns, and then it will go back to the usual statistical buzz it's always been.


Well that's what I thought, but then I think.
"Boy do people actually not care about it at all to treat it like this"
Just a hot topic like you said,things sure are getting stale.
There will be fewer jackasses because most of them will have shot themselves accidentally. :


----------



## AfterGlow (Jan 20, 2013)

A strong contender for the Darwin Award.

Although he ain't got shit on the kid who died playing Russian roulette.
With a semi-automatic handgun...


----------



## Level7N00b (Jan 20, 2013)

Trues to prove guns are safe. Then death occurs.

Seems legit.


----------



## Sasori (Jan 20, 2013)

Title says it all.

Should have just locked the thread at first post


----------



## Roman (Jan 20, 2013)

Bryan Paulsen said:


> The police and military are the State. Most American gun-control advocates insist on keeping them in the hands of those two entities.
> 
> You are an outlier if you think the State is going to give them up altogether. They're not, because a monopoly on force isn't going to weaken itself.



You can only say that if you have no trust in the state or govt, believing that they will use force to subjugate people if they don't have their guns to defend themselves. Like I said, that's not gonna happen, especially when the chance is so insignificant. Plus, also like I said, civilians are never going to have the same kind of weaponry that the state has.



Bryan Paulsen said:


> Nukes are not a self-defense tool. I've been over this repeatedly, the issue comes back to collateral damage even when used precisely. Neither do the hellfire missiles used by drones qualify. That's the _fallacy of equivocation_.
> 
> Guns qualify as a means of self-defense, meaning there isn't an intellectually consistent reason to ban them.



How do guns qualify as self-defense? Their sole purpose is to kill. Guns don't create bullet shields to protect you from other bullets. The argument of guns acting as deterrents isn't truly a form of self-defense when their use necessarily means a high risk of the other party dying. Then there's people like you who aren't afraid of people who carry them. In that case, guns already fail as deterrents anyways.



Bryan Paulsen said:


> Stating that you will respond to the abrogation of your rights with violence isn't _aggressive intent_, it is assertiveness. It's the same thing that would happen if you stole something of mine - I would beat the shit out of you. Anyone of a rational mind will recognize that for what it is - self-defense. Aggressiveness is stating I would beat the shit out of you if you don't give me your shoes.
> 
> All weapons are designed with the idea of nullifying your attacker. The possibility of killing them is moot due to aggression initiated against your person rendering their civil rights violable.



Stating that you will kill people if assault weapons are banned isn't assertiveness. It's murderous intent. Common sense. Please use it. Beating the shit out of me for stealing something of yours is also quite an aggressive response. If you did that to me, physical abilities aside, I'd report you to the police. Justice is not for me to take into my hands when there are people who get paid to protect you.

The fact of the matter is you're replying to forceful measures with forceful measures. How is killing someone not the result of aggressive intent?



Bryan Paulsen said:


> Tyranny of the majority. More specifically, the majority giving itself special privileges denied to minorities.



That's not happening in the US. There are laws protecting minorities now. The same for the majority of countries in the west. You want to take a look at tyranny of the majority? Take a look at Saudi. You will be publicly executed for practicing any religion outside of Islam.



Bryan Paulsen said:


> Hardly. A monopoly on force can easily override the Republic (see: Rome).



Yes indeed. So saying "the reason the US is a Republic is because Democracies could be tyrannical" is moot.



Bryan Paulsen said:


> This idea that because the US probably won't turn absolutely totalitarian, that it should have the absolute trust of the people is outright insanity given *recorded history*.
> 
> And again - the chances of it turning tyrannical isn't even really the point. The point is that it is well within the rights of the individual to own that weaponry as a means of self-defense.



Recorded history that does not apply to the US in the slightest. Times have changed. Govts no longer function the way ancient civilizations used to. The US has done its share of murders and crimes regular people wouldn't get away with, this is true. I'm not saying the US govt should be trusted on every issue and I'll be the first to say that. However, it's also outright insanity to state the US will become totalitarian when the evidence people use to support that argument has nothing to do with the US in the first place.

And as I said before, guns are tools designed specifically to kill and nothing else. It's a purely offensive tool. If you want self-defense, go purchase a plated shield.



Bryan Paulsen said:


> History is often puncuated with briefs period of relative peace. It's not particularly remarkable.
> 
> Again - google democide, and bother to actually study history. "Common sense" fails in the face of historical fact.



Oh please. I'm saying the US doesn't carry out witch hunts (not anymore at least) or death games. Comparing the US by the standards of civilizations were those practices were not only accepted, but celebrated shows a very glaring lack of common sense on your part.



Bryan Paulsen said:


> Ass-backwards logic. The monopoly on force does what it wants, and is hardly responsible to the people. This forms the basis of Authoritarianism, and is why Authoritarian States had the worst records of genocide and democide.
> 
> Unless, of course, you are blaming the German people _carte blanche_ for the Holocaust, for example.



In other words, since the state holds a monopoly of force over the people, the US inherently doesn't care about people's safety and would subjugate them if only they didn't have guns? I'm sorry, but the one with ass-backwards logic here is you. The US does have its problems, as I said, but it's hardly what I'd call authoritarian.

And no, I'm not blaming the German people. I'm going further back to a time where people were actually carrying out witch hunts. You referred to medieval times to justify your logic for keeping weapons right? That was a time where people celebrated witch hunts or would stand by if a knight was killed in a jousting tournament because that shit could happen from time to time. If those are the times you enjoyed or exemplify, build a time machine and go live there.



Bryan Paulsen said:


> You cannot ensure nobody abuses the rights of others. It is logically impossible, because you do not possess ownership of others. What you _can_ do is react to transgressions against rights.



By killing people?



Bryan Paulsen said:


> The 2nd Amendment isn't abused by owning rifles. Your failure to understand _why_ the 2nd Amendment exists is two-fold:
> 
> #1) Your knowledge of the history of States with an absolute monopoly on force is lacking. Google democide, again. If you want a *really* easy example, look up Turkey's gun-control policies it placed on the Armenians, and what immediately followed.
> 
> #2) You have no knowledge of what constitutes _natural rights_. The Bill of Rights merely put them in words, and isn't particularly remarkable beyond that.



1. Look at UK's and Japan's gun-control policies it placed on their own people and what immediately followed. The US's system of governance is much closer to the UK's than it is to Turkey's. Saying that the US will do what Turkey did if it placed gun control laws is insane.

2. It's not a natural right for people to kill others, period. This obviously goes both ways, state and civilians. You have the right to defend yourself. Owning guns, tools designed specifically to kill, goes beyond that. That's unnatural.



Bryan Paulsen said:


> Saying that if something is done to me, then I will respond accordingly is not aggressive intent. It's entirely defensive, and asserting the inviolability of my rights.
> 
> Maybe you should try hitting the weights. It might give you just enough confidence to stop fearing everything.



Having Arnold muscles will do me no good if someone shoots me in the head or heart. All the muscles in the world cannot rebuff bullets. Thanks for the suggestion tho.

If your response was to call the police, then that would not be aggressive intent. Saying you will respond with force is aggressive intent. Common sense. You have none.



Bryan Paulsen said:


> Do you tremble in fear whenever a bigger guy is around you? What about someone with combat training? What about someone with a hunting knife?



A bigger guy doesn't inspire fear in me. It's always possible to redirect their use of force against them. Someone with combat training would be harder to deal with but I have no reason to fear them if I give them no reason to respond aggressively (tho in your case that could be excessively easy). Someone with a hunting knife is someone I'd keep my distance with but they're typically not as dangerous as someone with combat training.

The thing is, even if stats say one thing, it takes multiple strikes to the head with fists to actually kill someone. It only takes one bullet from an assault rifle or any other gun for that matter to kill you. Muscles won't make a bit of difference in that regard either. Statistics aside, guns are far more dangerous than anyone's fists.



Bryan Paulsen said:


> You fear pointless shit. None of it justified. If you fear the possibility of someone killing you, then you would do well to remember they could just as well kill you with an ordinary object when you aren't looking. Someone simply carrying a gun doesn't scare the shit out of any rational individual.



I think you misunderstand me. I do not fear being around someone carrying a gun per se. What I'm saying is I'd be much more concerned if there was someone with a gun in my vicinity than someone with big muscles. That is all.


----------



## Cyphon (Jan 20, 2013)

Blitzomaru said:


> Why do you need to walk around with a concealed handgun?



Self defense. Police can't always be there and most certainly _aren't_ always there. 

As a popular quote says "better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it". 



> I'll say it once and I'll say it again. Gun control isn't about taking away all your guns. It's about 3 things.
> 1) Making sure people who have guns are responible, law abiding citizens
> 2)Making sure that weapons can be tracked toa point of sale and ownership.



These 2 things are fine and I am sure everyone agrees these are important. 



> 3) Making sure people don't have military grade weaponry as civillians because A) It's highly excessive firepower for an individual



This is where the argument starts to fall apart or if not exactly fall apart, it opens up a whole big shitfest IMO. 

I am specifically looking at your use of the word "exess". You could make the same exact argument about so many other things. Like car accidents for example, that kill lots of people. Why do people need cars that do over the speed limit? We should ban all cars that don't stay at the lawful speeds posted on the roads.

And before people quote this, I get cars and guns are not the same thing and are designed for 2 very different things. However, that doesn't change the legitimacy of the argument. If you are going to talk about excess you have to start talking about everything that people have in excess. Not just guns. 

For me it is quite simple. If you are following the laws and are not harming anyone else there is no reason for you NOT to be able to own whatever you want in whatever amount of excess you choose. That applies to guns or cars equally. 


My problem with this isn't how he went about proving his point. But its that you could just as easily prove a point on the other side of the argument given a controlled enviornment. Take some of these people who are so strongly against guns and put them in a situation where they need it to survive (I am talking about a fake scenario of course. Not putting them in real harm). I bet you there tone changes some when they realize their life is forfeit because of the very laws they are stressing. 


As for my personal take....As I said above, I think it is fine for people to own whatever they want so long as it doesn't harm others or become a problem. I do think it is probably best to make laws against carrying AR's into Walmart however. A concealed pistol I am fine with, but carrying a big ass gun or really even a pistol out in the open is just asking for trouble.


----------



## Cromer (Jan 20, 2013)

Oh yeah, guns in the hands of everyone, stupid or otherwise.


Seems good


----------



## Ippy (Jan 20, 2013)

Usually, I abhor suffering and death of my fellow man, but.....


----------



## rac585 (Jan 20, 2013)

must be a terrible person because i can't help but laugh a little. people are so stupid.


----------



## Chibason (Jan 20, 2013)

Damn, this is a shame...but wow, how stupid can you be..


----------



## kluang (Jan 20, 2013)




----------



## Gino (Jan 20, 2013)

Fail of a lifetime.....


----------



## Golden Circle (Jan 20, 2013)

I'm such a responsible gun owner.


----------



## Alicia (Jan 20, 2013)

really, this has happened so many times before, and it's always the US.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jan 20, 2013)

Cyphon said:


> Self defense. Police can't always be there and most certainly _aren't_ always there.
> 
> As a popular quote says "better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it".



Do you also have a lightning rod near you at all times? After all it's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.


----------



## Payapaya (Jan 20, 2013)

I feel sorry for his family and friends.  They had to watch him act stupid and kill himself.  I would not be surprise to find out that he had just bought the hand gun not to long ago.


----------



## Cyphon (Jan 20, 2013)

Saufsoldat said:


> Do you also have a lightning rod near you at all times? After all it's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.



Not even remotely the same thing.

Of course, if it were storming and you did take one....You would be better prepared than everyone else.


----------



## Dattebayo-chan (Jan 20, 2013)

That's a sad and stupid way to die. His family and loved ones have my condolences though. It must be hard on them when he died so unexpectedly, and at the age of 18.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jan 20, 2013)

Cyphon said:


> Not even remotely the same thing.
> 
> Of course, if it were storming and you did take one....You would be better prepared than everyone else.



Why isn't it the same thing? Situations in which a gun would actually help are insanely rare, you'll get hit by a dozen cars before finding yourself in such a situation.


----------



## Cyphon (Jan 20, 2013)

Saufsoldat said:


> Why isn't it the same thing?



Because it is obvious when you would need a lightning rod. With a gun it isn't. It is 2 different situations.


----------



## Utopia Realm (Jan 20, 2013)

Seems 2013 is gonna be a great year for us but especially for Darwin.


----------



## Utopia Realm (Jan 20, 2013)

Real shame. Hopefully these people recover back to full.


----------



## dr_shadow (Jan 20, 2013)

And of course it happened in Russia. Need to justify why it's called "Russian" roulette I guess.


----------



## Cyphon (Jan 20, 2013)

This is really only news because of all the current gun talk. Accidents happen with all sorts of things. People get injured every day. Nothing to see here.


----------



## Mider T (Jan 20, 2013)

^This is about the Florida St. Pete, not the Russian one.  The FL is more important so we don't have to say FL.


----------



## Hatifnatten (Jan 20, 2013)

mr_shadow said:


> And of course it happened in Russia. Need to justify why it's called "Russian" roulette I guess.





> Alexander Xavier Shaw





Not very educated are you.


----------



## Doge (Jan 20, 2013)

wibisana said:


> seriously? even I'll die if I crash my Van to brick-fence.
> I said tractor run over/hit people then they die. not you ride something and hit tractor then you die.









Do you think having an unrestrained combine harvesting corn is safe to animals and humans?


----------



## Hatifnatten (Jan 20, 2013)

Well, job well done for the guns I guess.


----------



## wibisana (Jan 20, 2013)

kresh said:


> Do you think having an unrestrained combine harvesting corn is safe to animals and humans?



you got point, but are you (we) really gonna argue this? banning (control/regulating) farming equipment? 
do you thing those thing comparable? every tool can be use as weapon. but gun is weapon, and what is "hot" discussed lately is assault rifle. those weapon can kill >10 easily. 

okay let's ban airplane. it was a *real weapon* used by Osama to kill 3000 people.
seriously???


----------



## dummy plug (Jan 20, 2013)

> In Medina, Ohio, an exhibitor at a local gun show was opening a box containing a gun when the weapon went off, striking his partner, who was sitting next to him, NBC station WKYC of Cleveland reported.



is it normal to put a gun inside a box _loaded_? sounds stupid to me


----------



## Ippy (Jan 20, 2013)

Smiley said:


> People get injured by farm equipment. Let's ban farming.


Talk to me when farm equipment is made exclusively for the purpose of killing things.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 20, 2013)

I give up on the argument, Bryan is acting as if all governments are equal and as if there is any evidence that this government is trying to take the guns away from the people. Oddly enough, no one is making any effort to fight the Patriot Act like BS that they are throwing out there right now. They're just worried about guns. That's how you know they've been misled. There's no one wanting people to be able to defend themselves because why would a government want you to be able to defend yourselves from it? 

No these are people paid by gun companies to gum up sales and it's working on people like Bryan.


----------



## Lady Hinata (Jan 20, 2013)

...Why?​


----------



## Cyphon (Jan 20, 2013)

MMAthematician said:


> Talk to me when farm equipment is made exclusively for the purpose of killing things.



This is a fair point but the other side of the point is also fair. Guns are made for killing/injuring yes, but that isn't all they are used for. People use them for sport shooting or competition or simply like the designs and history behind guns and collect them. 

And while farm equipment is made for farming it can be used for killing. Granted, that doesn't happen (not that I know of), but it has still killed through accidents.


----------



## Ae (Jan 20, 2013)

Regular citizen shouldn't have guns


----------



## Roman (Jan 20, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I give up on the argument, Bryan is acting as if all governments are equal and as if there is any evidence that this government is trying to take the guns away from the people. Oddly enough, no one is making any effort to fight the Patriot Act like BS that they are throwing out there right now. They're just worried about guns. That's how you know they've been misled. There's no one wanting people to be able to defend themselves because why would a government want you to be able to defend yourselves from it?
> 
> No these are people paid by gun companies to gum up sales and it's working on people like Bryan.



This is why I was saying earlier: the US has problems. The way to tackle them is not to barricade oneself and shoot the first threat that shows up to smithereens. But that's exactly why people are more worried about their guns being taken away. It's almost like they want things like the Patriot Act and the NDAA as excuses for them to make an argument to support their right to as many guns as humanly possible. In other words, they want the US to have problems so the idea of having more guns becomes less and less outlandish to them


----------



## hadou (Jan 20, 2013)

*Five shot dead in Albuquerque, teen charged*



> SANTA FE, New Mexico (Reuters) - A teenage boy with several weapons including an assault rifle shot and killed five people, three of them children, at a house in Albuquerque, New Mexico, authorities said on Sunday.
> The boy, whose exact age had yet to be determined, was arrested and charged with the killings which took place late Saturday night, said Aaron Williamson, a Bernalillo County Sheriff's Department deputy.
> "The victims all had multiple gunshot wounds, and there appeared to be multiple weapons, including an assault type weapon," Williamson said.
> The children appeared to be "elementary- to middle-school age," Williamson said. The boy was charged with two counts of murder and three counts of child abuse resulting in death, he said.
> ...



http://news.yahoo.com/five-shot-dead-albuquerque-teen-charged-192338159.html


----------



## Ippy (Jan 20, 2013)

No need for gun control, eh?


----------



## Enclave (Jan 20, 2013)

Clearly he was being threatened by an oppressive government tyrant and was only protecting himself, right?


----------



## Mael (Jan 20, 2013)

Freedan said:


> This is why I was saying earlier: the US has problems. The way to tackle them is not to barricade oneself and shoot the first threat that shows up to smithereens. But that's exactly why people are more worried about their guns being taken away. It's almost like they want things like the Patriot Act and the NDAA as excuses for them to make an argument to support their right to as many guns as humanly possible. In other words, they want the US to have problems so the idea of having more guns becomes less and less outlandish to them



It's not just that.  Pure gun control and only gun control is a naive notion that it would be responsible for a dip in violence and shootings.  What really needs to be done is a self-assessment of the mental health culture surrounding this country.  Did anyone even bother to notice how unhinged most of these shooters were?

People like Bryan spout off ideological babble because they can't compensate for the notion that individual rights need responsibility and have consequence when abused by the individual.  It's some libertarian-anarcho bullshit I've seen ad nauseum.  He can't comprehend that individuals are given a culture that doesn't even preach responsibility.  It's a "I do what I want when I want because mah CONSTITOOSHIUN SEZ SO YA COMMIE LIBRAL!"

Seriously, get fucked with that attitude.


----------



## Ippy (Jan 20, 2013)

Enclave said:


> Clearly he was being threatened by an oppressive government tyrant and was only protecting himself, right?


Remember what happened when they took the guns away from the Germans?  

The Holocaust.


----------



## Mael (Jan 20, 2013)

The State was clearly after him and thus he reacted.  He should've had access to the M2 .50 caliber and none of this would've happened.


----------



## Ultra Instinct Vegito (Jan 20, 2013)

Another one                  ?


----------



## Detective (Jan 20, 2013)

Guys, I believe the topic of gun control would be better left off for discussion in another capacity, on another day, and is not relevant to this scenario, as clearly this scenario could have been avoided if those children were allowed their constitutional right to bare arms as well.




.... seriously though, fuck this world. Those poor kids. We're not even a whole month into 2013, and how many multiple death-single shooter incidents have there been already?


----------



## Klauser (Jan 20, 2013)

Guns aren't at fault, he could have done as much damage with a pocket knife or with a bamboo stick.


----------



## Mael (Jan 20, 2013)

Detective said:


> Guys, I believe the topic of gun control would be better left off for discussion in another capacity, on another day, and is not relevant to this scenario, as clearly this scenario could have been avoided if those children were allowed their constitutional right to bare arms as well.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



But WE CANNOT LET THE STATE INFRINGE ON OUR RIGHTS! 

I really do hate this mentality.  You want socialism?  Go to Venezuela and see for yourself.  You want fascism?  Go sneak into North Korea.

You want all this freedom and zero consideration toward risk management and background checks?  Go fuck yourself.

Oh and fuck people who think this is staged.


----------



## Ultra Instinct Vegito (Jan 20, 2013)

Anyone think this is happening too often lately?


----------



## Chelydra (Jan 20, 2013)

Explain to me how people like this follow laws now. 

And yes it does seem somewhat suspicious that this is only now happening so frequently.


----------



## Pilaf (Jan 20, 2013)

Mintaka said:


> I didn't realize tractors and subways were WEAPONS.
> 
> There is the difference.



Challenge accepted. *grabs the ignition*


----------



## makeoutparadise (Jan 20, 2013)

NRA husband "relax we have this under control there's no problem."

Anti-gun wife " but don't you think it would be better if we jus-"

YOUR NOT TAKING AWAY MY GUNS WOMAN!!!


----------



## Megaharrison (Jan 20, 2013)

MMAthematician said:


> Talk to me when farm equipment is made exclusively for the purpose of killing things.



Made for killing plants!

Anyway been to many a gunshow. Gotta be pretty dumb to shoot yourself


----------



## Cinna (Jan 20, 2013)

Zezima said:


> Anyone think this is happening too often lately?



It seems like it. That or it's just being reported more. 

Either way this is just


----------



## Detective (Jan 20, 2013)

Cinna said:


> It seems like it. That or it's just being reported more.
> 
> Either way this is just



People get shot and unfortunately die every day, and most media aside from the local news stations, don't report it. It's these Multiple Death via Single Shooter incidents that have increased tenfold since the suggestion of Anti-Gun legislation becoming a possibility. These fucking nuts are trying to get in as many shots, literally, as they can before it's too late for them. Which is at the cost of innocent civilians.

Seriously speaking, and I ask this to someone with a greater knowledge of the US Justice and Political system, but can the President not make an Executive Level order to create a new gun law, or must it always have to have the "blessing" of the insane Republican contingent?

How many lives have to be lost for some hillbilly in the south to continue to have their right to bare 99283892839289382983 arms in a single house?


----------



## Chelydra (Jan 20, 2013)

Detective said:


> People get shot and unfortunately die every day, and most media aside from the local news stations, don't report it. It's these Multiple Death via Single Shooter incidents that have increased tenfold since the suggestion of Anti-Gun legislation becoming a possibility. These fucking nuts are trying to get in as many shots, literally, as they can before it's too late for them. Which is at the cost of innocent civilians.
> 
> Seriously speaking, and I ask this to someone with a greater knowledge of the US Justice and Political system, but can the President not make an Executive Level order to create a new gun law, or must it always have to have the "blessing" of the insane Republican contingent?
> 
> How many lives have to be lost for some hillbilly in the south to continue to have their right to bare 99283892839289382983 arms in a single house?



Since the right to bear arms is protected within the constitution he cannot do anything of the sort without congressional and senate approval.


----------



## Payapaya (Jan 20, 2013)

We all know what the real culprit is.  It those violent video games and movies. 

It always sucks to hear about stuff like this.  I wonder how the kid got the weapons in the first place.


----------



## Payapaya (Jan 20, 2013)

Incidents where gun owners are being careless.  I am not surprised and I only expect to hear more stories about it.


----------



## Linkdarkside (Jan 20, 2013)




----------



## Bishop (Jan 20, 2013)

I seriously think this is more of a mental illness issue, but eh, this doesn't help the gun protection campaign deal.


----------



## Ceria (Jan 20, 2013)

Chelydra said:


> Explain to me how people like this follow laws now.
> 
> *And yes it does seem somewhat suspicious that this is only now happening so frequently.*



I too find this suspicious,  

If you take away the guns it'll be worse.


----------



## Ultra Instinct Vegito (Jan 20, 2013)

This is going to turn bad eventually...


----------



## Rescuebear (Jan 20, 2013)

Cyphon said:


> This is a fair point but the other side of the point is also fair. Guns are made for killing/injuring yes, but that isn't all they are used for. People use them for sport shooting or competition or simply like the designs and history behind guns and collect them.



Sure but in this regard (especially collectors) its remarkably easy to make them safe.

Hunting/sports involving guns are heavily regulated here. People still hunt/play those sports, its just safer.



Cyphon said:


> And while farm equipment is made for farming it can be used for killing. Granted, that doesn't happen (not that I know of), but it has still killed through accidents.



People don't go buy tractors for the intent of killing people, to say that other things can kill too is very much beside the point. We don't regulate by what can kill and what can't, we regulate based on how dangerous things are. A tractor is less dangerous than an AK47.

Also would like to point out that tractors are necessary for farmers to farm with, Guns are essentially only necessary for professions in law enforcement.


----------



## Masaki (Jan 20, 2013)

Remember, guns don't kill people!


----------



## Cyphon (Jan 20, 2013)

Rescuebear said:


> Sure but in this regard (especially collectors) its remarkably easy to make them safe.



True. Its called a safety and most guns have them. Outside of that there is no need for anything else. 



> Hunting/sports involving guns are heavily regulated here. People still hunt/play those sports, its just safer.



I am not against increased safety. I am talking about banning the weapons from law abiding people. 



> A tractor is less dangerous than an AK47.



Eh....That is all based on the user. An AK47 sitting in a profressionals hands (with no intent to harm of course) is no more dangerous than a tractor. 



> Also would like to point out that tractors are necessary for farmers to farm with, Guns are essentially only necessary for professions in law enforcement.



Tractors aren't strictly necessary. They just increase speed. Hand tools and such could be used.


----------



## Enclave (Jan 20, 2013)

Cyphon said:


> Eh....That is all based on the user. An AK47 sitting in a profressionals hands (with no intent to harm of course) is no more dangerous than a tractor.



This sort of argument is always, well frankly, retarded.  A tractor is designed to assist in farming, it's what it's made for it's what it's sole purpose in being created is for.  An AK47 was expressly designed to efficiently kill humans, it has no other use other than harming humans.  There's no reason to own an AK47 and regardless of who owns the gun it is always going to be more dangerous than a tractor as it's sole purpose for existing is killing humans, by design it's an incredibly dangerous weapon.

Also, tractors are in fact a necessity in modern farming.  You outlaw tractors and just watch how quickly people start starving and the cost of foods skyrocket.


----------



## Dolohov27 (Jan 20, 2013)

Video Games made him do it.


----------



## Cyphon (Jan 20, 2013)

Enclave said:


> There's no reason to own an AK47 and regardless of who owns the gun it is always going to be more dangerous than a tractor as it's sole purpose for existing is killing humans, by design it's an incredibly dangerous weapon.



1. There are reasons to own them. Gun collectors, competition shooting with those specific weapons and yes, even self defense even if it is considered an extreme measure. On the other hand, there is no reason you shouldn't be able to own one if you aren't a criminal or crazy.

2. It isn't always going to be more dangerous. I would like you to show me how a gun sitting on a table in someones house is more dangerous than a tractor with farmers out working and moving around it. 

Your argument is well, frankly retarded. 



> Also, tractors are in fact a necessity in modern farming.  You outlaw tractors and just watch how quickly people start starving and the cost of foods skyrocket.



Increase the workers to make up for the speed of tractors. More jobs for people and the work still gets done at the same speed.

Anyway, that is getting too far off topic. Point is, there are tons of things that are excessive or dangerous. If we talk about banning one we should start talking about banning a bunch of other shit. Such as cars that go over the speed limit or alcohol.


----------



## Bryan Paulsen (Jan 20, 2013)

Freedan said:


> You can only say that if you have no trust in the state or govt, believing that they will use force to subjugate people if they don't have their guns to defend themselves. Like I said, that's not gonna happen, especially when the chance is so insignificant. Plus, also like I said, civilians are never going to have the same kind of weaponry that the state has.



Skepticism is correctly practiced when any individuals are in positions of power. The idea of trusting in the benevolence of other people with special privileges is asinine.

Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.

And acquiescing to the point that "civilians are never going to have the same kind of weaponry..." forcibly ejects your entire argument about gun-control. 

You have reduced yourself to class-warfare, most specifically the notion that the State deserves weaponry and the _proletariat_ does not. So much for you escaping my "generalizations".



> How do guns qualify as self-defense? Their sole purpose is to kill. Guns don't create bullet shields to protect you from other bullets. The argument of guns acting as deterrents isn't truly a form of self-defense when their use necessarily means a high risk of the other party dying. Then there's people like you who aren't afraid of people who carry them. In that case, guns already fail as deterrents anyways.



They qualify as self-defense due to being able to focus their force on a given aggressor against your rights without implying collateral damage, as is the case with explosives. Self-defense is *reactionary*.

_Deterrents aren't self-defense, you had best learn what the fuck constitutes self-defense, because at this point you don't even have the damn semantics right, and you're just being annoying._



> Stating that you will kill people if assault weapons are banned isn't assertiveness. It's murderous intent. Common sense. Please use it. Beating the shit out of me for stealing something of yours is also quite an aggressive response. If you did that to me, physical abilities aside, I'd report you to the police. Justice is not for me to take into my hands when there are people who get paid to protect you.



Stating that you will kill people that _take your property_, thereby violating your rights and forfeiting their own, is assertiveness. If nobody steals your property, then *nothing happens*.

*Murderous intent*, since you obviously have no clue what constitutes it, implies unprovoked aggression and directed malice. You have a really fucked up understanding of aggression and self-defense.

By the way, if you steal my shit and you get the life beat out of you, the law wouldn't be on your side. Except for in the inane countries that view the responsibility of self-defense as being handled by the State, which thankfully the USA doesn't count among, self-defense is defended by the law.



> The fact of the matter is you're replying to forceful measures with forceful measures. How is killing someone not the result of aggressive intent?



The defender *never* initiates the aggression, by definition. The defender _intends_ to do precisely nothing, because self-defense is a _reactionary_ measure.



> That's not happening in the US. There are laws protecting minorities now. The same for the majority of countries in the west. You want to take a look at tyranny of the majority? Take a look at Saudi. You will be publicly executed for practicing any religion outside of Islam.



Yes, there are laws protecting minorities. Like the minority of people that actually happen to have their hands on the levers of power in the State.

Look up Qualified Immunity. Then sit back and wonder why, in a State in which equal application of the law doesn't exist in even a nominal form, I'm supposed to look up to my rulers.

In fact, I should just point out that corporatism and fascism is the more likely source of tyranny in this country at this point.



> Yes indeed. So saying "the reason the US is a Republic is because Democracies could be tyrannical" is moot.



Except that's exactly the reason cited by the Founders of our social contract. This is basic history.



> Recorded history that does not apply to the US in the slightest. Times have changed. Govts no longer function the way ancient civilizations used to. The US has done its share of murders and crimes regular people wouldn't get away with, this is true. I'm not saying the US govt should be trusted on every issue and I'll be the first to say that. However, it's also outright insanity to state the US will become totalitarian when the evidence people use to support that argument has nothing to do with the US in the first place.



Evidence plainly demonstrates power has further centralized in the federal government over each century. This trend is not a positive one for the freedom of individuals.

See the PATRIOT Act and NDAA. Then get back to me on how Uncle Sam deserves unwavering trust.

And recorded history applies to humanity. Get out of here with that stupid bullshit, thinking the US is super-special and has transcended humanity. Never mind the fucked up things the US has done to its own people.



> And as I said before, guns are tools designed specifically to kill and nothing else. It's a purely offensive tool. If you want self-defense, go purchase a plated shield.



Serious question: do you honestly believe what you just wrote, or are you being sarcastic?

I sincerely hope the latter.



> Oh please. I'm saying the US doesn't carry out witch hunts (not anymore at least) or death games. Comparing the US by the standards of civilizations were those practices were not only accepted, but celebrated shows a very glaring lack of common sense on your part.



The Drug War is a modern-day witch-hunt that has given us the most incarcerated population in the world. Never mind a lot of other questionable shit the State has done (and the list is long, if you want other examples, ie: The Tuskegee Experiment, I will be more than happy to oblige).



> In other words, since the state holds a monopoly of force over the people, the US inherently doesn't care about people's safety and would subjugate them if only they didn't have guns? I'm sorry, but the one with ass-backwards logic here is you. The US does have its problems, as I said, but it's hardly what I'd call authoritarian.



The US is not responsible for the safety of individuals, so says the US Supreme Court and Appellate Courts. If you are too lazy to look up the cases, then let me know, and I will provide you the pertinent information.

And the history of States abusing their power in the presence of a disarmed citizenry is more than enough to justify the armament of the _proletariat_.



> And no, I'm not blaming the German people. I'm going further back to a time where people were actually carrying out witch hunts. You referred to medieval times to justify your logic for keeping weapons right? That was a time where people celebrated witch hunts or would stand by if a knight was killed in a jousting tournament because that shit could happen from time to time. If those are the times you enjoyed or exemplify, build a time machine and go live there.



The medieval times were an example. States denying their citizens the right to bear arms still goes on to this day. History repeats itself.



> 1. Look at UK's and Japan's gun-control policies it placed on their own people and what immediately followed. The US's system of governance is much closer to the UK's than it is to Turkey's. Saying that the US will do what Turkey did if it placed gun control laws is insane.



Stating that it is impossible is the insanity. Familarize yourself with _game theory_



> 2. It's not a natural right for people to kill others, period. This obviously goes both ways, state and civilians. You have the right to defend yourself. Owning guns, tools designed specifically to kill, goes beyond that. That's unnatural.



Self-defense, and all that it encompasses (ie: potentially killing an attacker), is morally permissible behavior.

Your idea of self-defense is, again, erroneous.



> If your response was to call the police, then that would not be aggressive intent. Saying you will respond with force is aggressive intent. Common sense. You have none.



Calling the police doesn't constitute self-defense. Never mind the stupidity you're implying here, "I'm under attack and don't want to hurt you, because then I am in the wrong, too! Help!"



> A bigger guy doesn't inspire fear in me. It's always possible to redirect their use of force against them. Someone with combat training would be harder to deal with but I have no reason to fear them if I give them no reason to respond aggressively (tho in your case that could be excessively easy). Someone with a hunting knife is someone I'd keep my distance with but they're typically not as dangerous as someone with combat training.



Here's reality, kid:

There are people out there bigger, faster, stronger, and better trained than you. They can kill you if they want to, and there is very, very little you can do about it.

If you don't fear them, then you have no reason to fear a gun.

As for me, I don't fear them, because I already recognize my life exists at the sufferance of others.



> The thing is, even if stats say one thing, it takes multiple strikes to the head with fists to actually kill someone. It only takes one bullet from an assault rifle or any other gun for that matter to kill you. Muscles won't make a bit of difference in that regard either. Statistics aside, guns are far more dangerous than anyone's fists.



Statistics show fists are more dangerous than rifles, at least in terms of the number of kills.

What does this mean? It isn't hard to kill people, which is why people should be endorsing effective means of self-defense for _everyone_.



> I think you misunderstand me. I do not fear being around someone carrying a gun per se. What I'm saying is I'd be much more concerned if there was someone with a gun in my vicinity than someone with big muscles. That is all.



Make no mistake. If your back is turned, and somebody wants to kill you, they don't need a gun or muscles.

If someone has a gun, then it's the same thing in the end. If somebody wants to kill you badly enough, _they will_.

And that's why fear is pointless. The sooner you come to grip with reality, the better.


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Jan 20, 2013)

No one should feel bad for thinking that this is kinda funny.  Your dead ass deserves to be mocked if you violate so many basic firearms safety principles and kill yourself in the process.


----------



## Kira Yamato (Jan 20, 2013)

I feel sorry for anyone who had the witness the act. It can be horribly traumatizing. 

Don't feel as much pity for the actual victim who exercised a exceptionally high level of stupidity.


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Jan 20, 2013)

> Officials say Gary Lynn Wilson, 36, was having his shotgun checked before entering the show when the incident happened. He was unzipping his 12-gauge shotgun's case when it accidentally fired birdshot pellets, hitting three people, The News & Observer in Raleigh reported. Wilson was planning on privately selling the gun at the show, according to NBC affiliate WNCN.



Gun shows have -always- had safety problems of the accidental sort.  This is a clear case of someone who was responsible for a weapon not doing his due diligence and unloading the damn thing.  Charges of criminal negligence ought to be filed.



> In Medina, Ohio, an exhibitor at a local gun show was opening a box containing a gun when the weapon went off, striking his partner, who was sitting next to him, NBC station WKYC of Cleveland reported.



Again.  Due diligence.



> In Indianapolis, state police said a 54-year-old man was loading his .45 caliber semi-automatic gun when he shot himself in the hand, The Associated Press reported. The victim, Emory L. Cozee, had been leaving the Indy 1500 Gun and Knife show at the state, officials told the AP. Loaded personal weapons are not permitted inside this show, according to the AP.



Idiots all.  Hey gun wonks of the forum.  Is there a way to visibly disable a firearm like people disable paintball markets with barrel plugs?  Is it practical to come up with a general purpose solution for disabling the movement of the bolt?


----------



## T7 Bateman (Jan 20, 2013)

Wow that's just...wow. lol


----------



## Bryan Paulsen (Jan 20, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I give up on the argument, Bryan is acting as if all governments are equal and as if there is any evidence that this government is trying to take the guns away from the people. Oddly enough, no one is making any effort to fight the Patriot Act like BS that they are throwing out there right now. They're just worried about guns. That's how you know they've been misled. There's no one wanting people to be able to defend themselves because why would a government want you to be able to defend yourselves from it?
> 
> No these are people paid by gun companies to gum up sales and it's working on people like Bryan.



The history of centralized power is, historically speaking, equal. Democide forms a consistent enough argument against centralized power, in all of its forms.

PATRIOT Act, NDAA, et al, are not fought because the Red and Blue Teams that play political football don't give a flying fuck about your rights, unless it comes to giving them away in the spirit of bipartisanship.

That, and Americans are lazy. They will only, finally, react when it finally becomes their problem. For many, unlike the PATRIOT Act and NDAA, the issue of gun-control hits home.



Freedan said:


> This is why I was saying earlier: the US has problems. The way to tackle them is not to barricade oneself and shoot the first threat that shows up to smithereens. But that's exactly why people are more worried about their guns being taken away. It's almost like they want things like the Patriot Act and the NDAA as excuses for them to make an argument to support their right to as many guns as humanly possible. In other words, they want the US to have problems so the idea of having more guns becomes less and less outlandish to them



Our position is painfully clear to the point you have to _try_ to fuck it up.

_Molon labe._

If you try to take our guns, _then_ we will respond in self-defense. We do not give a flying fuck what laws you pass that would confiscate our property, because they are a violation of our rights.

You seem to think we're itching to start a fight, when it's the gun-control advocates telling us our property should be forfeit, because the majority says so.

For what it's worth, concerning _actual legislation_, confiscation isn't on the table. Yet. But, for people like me, arguing with people like you, I have good enough reason to not be compliant in limiting the tools of self-defense. The endgame for the gun-control crowd _is_ eventual confiscation in the name of "public safety".



Mael said:


> People like Bryan spout off ideological babble because they can't compensate for the notion that individual rights need responsibility and have consequence when abused by the individual.



We already have consequences for when someone's rights are aggressed against. They're called laws.

You can't legislate responsibility, either. Do you control anyone other than yourself? No? Alright, then. Sit down, and shut the fuck up.


----------



## T7 Bateman (Jan 20, 2013)

Sad another shooting.


----------



## Cyphon (Jan 20, 2013)

The Space Cowboy said:


> Is there a way to visibly disable a firearm like people disable paintball markets with barrel plugs?  Is it practical to come up with a general purpose solution for disabling the movement of the bolt?



They make trigger locks for guns. 

There are also guns with safeties built into the trigger. In some cases that means you have to actively press the trigger more firmly than you normally would in order to fire. So you can't just "bump" the trigger and have it go off. For others they actually have what you could call a "split" trigger. What that is is basically a 2 piece trigger and you have to pull the bottom have of the trigger into place before you can pull the trigger back in order to fire. 

There are probably other things as well but my gun knowledge is fairly limited.


----------



## navy (Jan 20, 2013)

What idiot goes to a gun show...


----------



## Santeira (Jan 20, 2013)

I love how he proved himself wrong.


----------



## TheCupOfBrew (Jan 20, 2013)

He finally unlocked Kyptek Typhon.


----------



## JoJo (Jan 20, 2013)

I guess that gun really

*Puts on sunglasses*

Blew his mind.


----------



## KidTony (Jan 20, 2013)

Bishop said:


> I seriously think this is more of a mental illness issue, but eh, this doesn't help the gun protection campaign deal.



so Japan, Australia, The UK, they don't have people with mental illnesses?


----------



## Sunuvmann (Jan 20, 2013)

inb4 "ITS OBAMA'S FAULT!!!111!!!!11!!11"


----------



## Sunuvmann (Jan 20, 2013)

Smiley said:


> People get injured by farm equipment. Let's ban farming.


Stupid argument.

Farming equipment's primary use is to well...farm

The primary use of guns is to kill/maim. Huge fucking shock when they do just that.


----------



## dummy plug (Jan 20, 2013)

well its better he killed himself than shooting an innocent bystander


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 20, 2013)

People at gun shows deserve to be accidentally shot, what goes on there shouldn't even be legal. People wheeling around barrels of rifles and guns and purchasing them without background checks is the stupidest thing ever.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 20, 2013)

Florida...glad to have you back. Ehhh, not really.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 20, 2013)

KidTony said:


> so Japan, Australia, The UK, they don't have people with mental illnesses?


 People there have coherent health care...so what you're saying is stupid. 

Plus, America isn't those places. 

If only these other people had been armed, they could have defended themselves!


----------



## Griever (Jan 20, 2013)

Sunuvmann said:


> Stupid argument.
> 
> Farming equipment's primary use is to well...farm
> 
> The primary use of guns is to kill/maim. Huge fucking shock when they do just that.



Less stupid than your argument..... 

A gun is a dangerous tool, which is why there are safety measures when handling them. As with any machinery,  or  etc.

Does it matter that these tools are not specifically designed to grind your hand or cause asphyxia due to neck compression?, no it doesn't. they are dangerous tools nonetheless and a moment of carelessness can result in serious injury and or death.


----------



## Lina Inverse (Jan 20, 2013)

So is it the new thing these days there in the US? Shooting people up and shit?


----------



## Sanity Check (Jan 20, 2013)

And 5 accidentally cut themselves shaving in North Carolina, Ohio, Indiana.

Much thanks to the media for being sensationalist in blowing these minor events out of proportion.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 20, 2013)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> And 5 accidentally cut themselves shaving in North Carolina, Ohio, Indiana.
> 
> Much thanks to the media for being sensationalist in blowing these minor events out of proportion.


 This is hardly sensationalist, gun shows are just an all around bad thing, there's not enough regulation in place for them to be even remotely viable.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 20, 2013)

Lina Inverse said:


> So is it the new thing these days there in the US? Shooting people up and shit?


 This is not really a new thing, it's kind of our thing.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 20, 2013)

Griever said:


> Less stupid than your argument.....
> 
> A gun is a dangerous tool, which is why there are safety measures when handling them. As with any machinery,  or  etc.
> 
> Does it matter that these tools are not specifically designed to grind your hand or cause asphyxia due to neck compression?, no it doesn't. they are dangerous tools nonetheless and a moment of carelessness can result in serious injury and or death.



Guns express purpose are to kill, so the argument of comparing them to other tools is utterly moronic. Anything can kill you, but they do not have the express purpose of doing it.


----------



## Sanity Check (Jan 20, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> This is hardly sensationalist, gun shows are just an all around bad thing, there's not enough regulation in place for them to be even remotely viable.



Gun shows imply americans along the mexican border are armed.

If they weren't armed, mexican drug cartels & other criminalswould know they could rob them with impunity.  And given how easy it is to smuggle drugs, illegals and guns across the mexican border the criminals and drug cartels would still have guns even if americans didn't.

Likewise if you lived in a remote area populated by polar bears, grizzly bears, cougars, and other dangerous wild animals how would you feel if some crazy people tried to deprive you of guns you relied on to defend yourself and your family.

Its strange how many blindly believe myths recited by the media claiming guns serve no purpose other than killing people in blind faith without being able to question whether such a thing is true or fiction.  Media sensationalism strikes again.


----------



## Mael (Jan 20, 2013)

KidTony said:


> so Japan, Australia, The UK, they don't have people with mental illnesses?



As CTK said, they seem to deal with it better or as seen in places like Japan, Korea, and China, completely treat it like nothing but weakness so said afflicted person often kills themselves before they kill others.  It's callous I know but apparently workable.  

Mental illness care needs a big overhaul here.  The culture has to stop where we think it's immediately treatable with a pill or it's an utter sign of weakness and/or godlessness.  We're not fucking Asia ffs.


----------



## Lina Inverse (Jan 20, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> This is not really a new thing, it's kind of our thing.



thing is, that makes it all the more worse mang


----------



## Ubereem (Jan 20, 2013)

This is just sad, truly sad.


----------



## Lord Yu (Jan 21, 2013)

Things like this will keep happening for as long as the media turns these gunmen into celebrities.


----------



## Griever (Jan 21, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Guns express purpose are to kill, so the argument of comparing them to other tools is utterly moronic. Anything can kill you, but they do not have the express purpose of doing it.



And yet one of those very things that where not specifically designed to kill or cause injury has a higher mortality rate and injury rate than guns.

So what exactly does "express purpose" have to do with anything?.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 21, 2013)

Griever said:


> And yet one of those very things that where not specifically designed to kill or cause injury has a higher mortality rate and injury rate than guns.
> 
> So what exactly does "express purpose" have to do with anything?.



Because a greater number use those devices and more often, those devices are meant to offer some ease for daily tasks, not kill people. If their function were the latter a lot more would be dead or injured. So again, the argument is utterly moronic.


----------



## kluang (Jan 21, 2013)




----------



## Griever (Jan 21, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Because a greater number use those devices and more often. So again, the argument is utterly moronic.



That does not disprove my point nor does it prove yours. All I'm seeing here is; 'a dangerous tool is a dangerous tool, and careless use can result in death and injury.' So again, where does this "express purpose" come into play, how does it so effect the end result that it's oh so different and cannot be compared to other dangerous machinery that with improper or careless use can result in injury and death?.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 21, 2013)

Griever said:


> That does not disprove my point nor does it prove yours. All I'm seeing here is; 'a dangerous tool is a dangerous tool, and careless use can result in death and injury.' So again, where does this "express purpose" come into play, how does it so effect the end result that it's oh so different and cannot be compared to other dangerous machinery that with improper or careless use can result in injury and death?.



The guns purpose is to cause death and injury, the function it serves is extremely important when trying to compare it to other devices. That is why the argument of comparing it to farming tools, or meat cutters, or devices meant to ease conventional, daily tasks is total shit. Those tools are dangerous, as high-power tools tend to be, and you have to be careful around them but they aren't intended to kill people. As I stated, anything can kill, but you intentionally ignore the fact that a gun is supposed to kill and its functions geared towards maximizing casualty.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 21, 2013)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> Gun shows imply americans along the mexican border are armed.
> 
> If they weren't armed, mexican drug cartels & other criminalswould know they could rob them with impunity.  And given how easy it is to smuggle drugs, illegals and guns across the mexican border the criminals and drug cartels would still have guns even if americans didn't.
> 
> ...



This is perhaps one of the stupidest things I've ever read. Are there Mexican drug cartels in fucking Indiana, Ohio and North Carolina crossing over from the border? The border to where? Canada? The fucking OCEAN? 

You need to stop taking the position to defend the craziest side in every argument, it's making you appear to be a crazy person. 

And even then, citizens can be armed without gun shows. A gun show isn't a place where people just go to look at guns, like a dog show is for dogs. You go there to purchase weapons without background checks from vendors and other people who might have guns.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 21, 2013)

Lord Yu said:


> Things like this will keep happening for as long as the media turns these gunmen into celebrities.


The media won't stop doing that...


----------



## Megaharrison (Jan 21, 2013)

The Space Cowboy said:


> Idiots all.  Hey gun wonks of the forum.  Is there a way to visibly disable a firearm like people disable paintball markets with barrel plugs?  Is it practical to come up with a general purpose solution for disabling the movement of the bolt?



There's no surefire way to stop a gun from going off if there's a round in the chamber. Safety and so on is just a precaution that doesn't work 100% of the time and even if you're not touching the trigger at all, it can still go off if you drop it. The guy who shot himself while loading his pistol is fairly lulz, because there's no reason to have any bullets in there while actively loading it.

Which is why of course I think gun owners should be restricted to military and militarily-trained police personnel, because you won't have this kind of stupid shit going down.


----------



## dr_shadow (Jan 21, 2013)

Hatifnatten said:


> Not very educated are you.



I'm educated enough, just not very American. 

I speak four languages and am currently doing my Master's degree in a foreign country. How about you?


----------



## Megaharrison (Jan 21, 2013)

Alright I got tired of a bajillion different gun threads again. Behold the new abomination of a super thread!


----------



## Griever (Jan 21, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> The guns purpose is to cause death and injury, the function it serves is extremely important when trying to compare it to other devices. That is why the argument of comparing it to farming tools, or meat cutters, or devices meant to ease conventional, daily tasks is total shit.



Only in the appropriate context, and excluding it because it shoots a projectile rather than having multiple blades that rotate at high-speeds is not one of them.




> Those tools are dangerous, as high-power tools tend to be, and you have to be careful around them but they aren't intended to kill people. As I stated, anything can kill,



.... And yet you just don't seem to get that when speaking of accidental injury or death, intended purpose is meaningless. 



> but you intentionally ignore the fact that a gun is supposed to kill and its functions geared towards maximizing casualty.



How do you figure?, i mean ignoring the fact that it is quite impossible to do since that is the basis of the entire argument....


----------



## Revolution (Jan 21, 2013)

Bill the Troll said:


> Alright I got tired of a bajillion different gun threads again. Behold the new abomination of a super thread!



Feel free to move my thread  to to this place.  Didn't see this when I posted.


----------



## Cyphon (Jan 21, 2013)

I still standby what guns are designed for as being a pretty irrelevant argument in the overall scheme of things. It doesn't matter what something is designed for unless your intent is to use it to that effect. And if everyone wants something to bridge the gap between designed to kill and designed as a tool look at knives. They are more or less. Both. Knives are considered a weapon but also an aiding tool in the kitchen and butcher shops. Which it is considered comes down to what someone is using it for. A butcher knife in a butcher shop is a tool. A butcher knife in a street fight is a weapon. 

So just as a tractor is meant for farming but can ultimately be used as a weapon or end up killing, a gun is something made for killing that can be used for competition, sport shooting or as a collectors item. It is all about the intent of the person, not the item itself. So it is fair to compare things like a tractor to a gun. That may not be the best 2 things to compare but it is still a fair argument.

And of course there are those who want assault weapons banned but are okay with pistols or hunting rifles. The reasoning behind that is that it is excessive to have an AR. But again, if we are going down that path why don't we look at everything else. I have used cars as an example of this. Why do we allow cars to be designed and people to own cars that do over the speed limit? You are literally creating/buying something designed to break the law. Yes, vehicles are made for transport and that is all good, but why not limit them all to a speed no greater than the maximum speed limit? It is "excessive" to have cars go so fast. From there we can look at motorcycles and other forms of transportation and from that we can expand the argument almost exponentially.


----------



## hcheng02 (Jan 21, 2013)

This is an old Economist article, but its reasoning is pretty pertinent to this thread. Its pretty long though, but its a good read.





> A Stinger for Antonin
> Jul 30th 2012, 17:05 by M.S.
> 
> YESTERDAY on "Fox News Sunday", Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court justice, suggested that Americans may have a constitutional right to own and carry shoulder-mounted anti-aircraft missiles.
> ...


----------



## Roman (Jan 21, 2013)

Griever said:


> That does not disprove my point nor does it prove yours. All I'm seeing here is; 'a dangerous tool is a dangerous tool, and careless use can result in death and injury.' So again, where does this "express purpose" come into play, how does it so effect the end result that it's oh so different and cannot be compared to other dangerous machinery that with improper or careless use can result in injury and death?.



Firearms constitute approx. 70% of total homicide in the US. That's where the express purpose to kill comes into play. Do tell how firearms are not as dangerous as farming tools?



Cyphon said:


> I still standby what guns are designed for as being a pretty irrelevant argument in the overall scheme of things. It doesn't matter what something is designed for unless your intent is to use it to that effect. And if everyone wants something to bridge the gap between designed to kill and designed as a tool look at knives. They are more or less. Both. Knives are considered a weapon but also an aiding tool in the kitchen and butcher shops. Which it is considered comes down to what someone is using it for. A butcher knife in a butcher shop is a tool. A butcher knife in a street fight is a weapon.



Again, firearms constitute approx. 70% of total homicide in the US. How can one then say their express purpose, which is to kill, not irrelevant? They clearly have an influence in the homicide rate when you put it against other countries where guns are banned and see their homicide rate to be proportionately much lower. And here is another reason why their express purpose comes to play. If you use a gun, it can only be with the intent to kill. That is not the case with knives. Some knives are meant to kill, but try killing someone with a butter knife. On the contrary, ALL guns are designed to kill. I also don't see why knives has to be brought up considering they constitute a very small proportion of homicides.



Cyphon said:


> So just as a tractor is meant for farming but can ultimately be used as a weapon or end up killing, a gun is something made for killing that can be used for competition, sport shooting or as a collectors item. It is all about the intent of the person, not the item itself. So it is fair to compare things like a tractor to a gun. That may not be the best 2 things to compare but it is still a fair argument.



In other words, guns can't be used for anything that's productive outside of killing (if one can feasibly view deliberate death as productive).


----------



## Griever (Jan 21, 2013)

Freedan said:


> Firearms constitute approx. 70% of total homicide in the US. That's where the express purpose to kill comes into play.



Which is irrelevant since we are talking about accidents and not homicide. 




> Do tell how firearms are not as dangerous as farming tools?



I don't have to since i made no such claim.


----------



## Roman (Jan 21, 2013)

Griever said:


> I don't have to since i made no such claim.



Fair enough, but....



Griever said:


> Which is irrelevant since we are talking about accidents and not homicide.



Well there you have it. People are going to be using farming tools far more often than guns for anything other than killing. Of course mortality rates resulting from accidents rather than the deliberate intent to kill are going to be higher. Accidents should not serve as a reason to deem tools not meant for killing as being at least as dangerous as tools designed to kill.


----------



## Cyphon (Jan 21, 2013)

Freedan said:


> Again, firearms constitute approx. 70% of total homicide in the US. How can one then say their express purpose, which is to kill, not irrelevant?



I say it is irrelevant because once again, it is about intent of use. And to go further, talking about law abiding people being able to own firearms. You are talking about murderers and criminals who in most cases would have guns regardless of legality. In fact, I would be interested to see of the 70% how many of the firearms used were legal vs illegal.

Why would we prevent someone from using a weapon for sport and competition? Should we also eliminate baseball because it serves no purpose to society other than to entertain? 



> If you use a gun, it can only be with the intent to kill. That is not the case with knives. Some knives are meant to kill, but try killing someone with a butter knife. On the contrary, ALL guns are designed to kill.



1. You are just plain wrong. I just used a gun the other day and nobody died and my intent wasn't to kill. I was shooting at targets for sport and fun. 

2. Not all guns are specifically designed to kill. Some guns are specifically designed and altered for competition and the like. 



> I also don't see why knives has to be brought up considering they constitute a very small proportion of homicides.



I brought them up because they bridge the gap that people created comparing tractors to guns. Tractors are for farming and guns are for killing according to each side. Well in the case of knives, they are both. So we should look at those to help bridge the gap and see where both sides can meet and where they are coming from. 



> In other words, guns can't be used for anything that's productive outside of killing (if one can feasibly view deliberate death as productive).



It depends on how you define productive. Hunting for example , while technically still killing, provides food for families. No different than farming you might say. 

And again, they can also be used in competitions and for sport which raises money and creates jobs and such. Hell, shooting is an olympic event.


*Edit*

And if your argument is relying on the fact the guns are designed only to harm than you should be arguing against the creation of guns or weapons period. Not against specific people owning them.


----------



## Roman (Jan 21, 2013)

Cyphon said:


> I say it is irrelevant because once again, it is about intent of use. And to go further, talking about law abiding people being able to own firearms. You are talking about murderers and criminals who in most cases would have guns regardless of legality. In fact, I would be interested to see of the 70% how many of the firearms used were legal vs illegal.



Legal or not, guns are meant to kill and contribute to a much too high murder rate. If we're gonna talk about legal ownership vs illegal ownership, then I'd have to say that the number of legally accessible firearms has an effect on their illegal accessibility. There's a reason countries where firearms are banned see a very small proportion of murder being gun-related. People's access to guns, legal or illegal, is heavily restricted as a result of gun control laws which forbid everyone from obtaining them.



Cyphon said:


> Why would we prevent someone from using a weapon for sport and competition? Should we also eliminate baseball because it serves no purpose to society other than to entertain?



Strawman argument. Baseball, or at least the tools used for the sport, have a very poor mortality rate and aren't designed with the express purpose of killing.



Cyphon said:


> 1. You are just plain wrong. I just used a gun the other day and nobody died and my intent wasn't to kill. I was shooting at targets for sport and fun.
> 
> 2. Not all guns are specifically designed to kill. Some guns are specifically designed and altered for competition and the like.



Fair enough about guns used for sport, but only to the extent where bullets are absolutely non-lethal. There's no point in using lethal bullets for non-lethal purposes.



Cyphon said:


> It depends on how you define productive. Hunting for example , while technically still killing, provides food for families. No different than farming you might say.
> 
> And again, they can also be used in competitions and for sport which raises money and creates jobs and such. Hell, shooting is an olympic event.



When eating humans is socially acceptable, we'll talk again.



Cyphon said:


> And if your argument is relying on the fact the guns are designed only to harm than you should be arguing against the creation of guns or weapons period. Not against specific people owning them.



Why do you think I desire the second amendment to be completely revised such that no one is allowed to carry guns? Personally, and I'd have hoped you know me well enough by now, I despise the idea of killing in and of itself. I'm against the death penalty regardless who it is we're talking about. You and many others may not like to see this and I welcome ALL your negs, but I think guns never should've existed in this world to begin with.


----------



## Cyphon (Jan 21, 2013)

Freedan said:


> Legal or not, guns are meant to kill and contribute to a much too high murder rate.



Guns are only meant to kill if that is the intent of the owner. You shouldn't continue to ignore that. 

I agree that guns contribute to a high murder rate but again, with that we are talking about eliminating the creation of guns as a whole. Not just specific people getting them. That is a different argument altogether. 

And just to touch on that for a second. There are so many guns already out and about that there is simply no stopping it at this point. You would never be able to round them up or even come close. It would be a futile effort and likely a big waste of money and resources. 

I think the way you fix the problem (if that is what you have in mind) is changing prices and production, not ability to own.



> If we're gonna talk about legal ownership vs illegal ownership, then I'd have to say that the number of legally accessible firearms has an effect on their illegal accessibility.



I don't disagree with this. The part I cut out of your quote I feel is covered above. 



> Strawman argument. Baseball, or at least the tools used for the sport, have a very poor mortality rate and aren't designed with the express purpose of killing.



That wasn't the argument. Your argument was about guns serving a purpose other than killing. My point is that sports serve no purpose other than entertaining. So if we are talking about purpose we should be considering everything and what actual purpose it serves. Off the top of my head sports aren't harmful to society but that is what popped into my head. I am sure there are better examples to use. 



> Fair enough about guns used for sport, but only to the extent where bullets are absolutely non-lethal. There's no point in using lethal bullets for non-lethal purposes.



I can agree with that and it also goes with my above point. Talking about people having access to guns isn't going to go far because of the above problems I mentioned. It just isn't feasible. So the aim should be to stop production of lethal ammunition or to make the price very high. Obviously there will still be what is already out there but again, there is no stopping that. 



> When eating humans is socially acceptable, we'll talk again.



Cannibalism isn't socially acceptable? 

Seriously though, I am talking about animals.



> Why do you think I desire the second amendment to be completely revised such that no one is allowed to carry guns? Personally, and I'd have hoped you know me well enough by now, I despise the idea of killing in and of itself.



Well actually......I don't know you that well and this is a completely different argument IMO. I have no problem if you would like to discuss the possibilities of this idea but I believe most of what I think is already stated above, depending on your ideas of course. 



> You and many others may not like to see this and I welcome ALL your negs, but I think guns never should've existed in this world to begin with.



I for one am not going to neg you for having an opinion (unless you neg me first ), so long as you deliver it respectfully. In fact, I may even agree with you. I have just never thought about it to that extent.


----------



## Roman (Jan 21, 2013)

Cyphon said:


> Guns are only meant to kill if that is the intent of the owner. You shouldn't continue to ignore that.



Guns are designed to shoot a small round metal alloy with a hardened tip tough enough to pierce through softer materials at high speeds. Other than shooting targets, I cannot see any other purposes guns were made for apart from killing.



Cyphon said:


> I agree that guns contribute to a high murder rate but again, with that we are talking about eliminating the creation of guns as a whole. Not just specific people getting them. That is a different argument altogether.
> 
> And just to touch on that for a second. There are so many guns already out and about that there is simply no stopping it at this point. You would never be able to round them up or even come close. It would be a futile effort and likely a big waste of money and resources.
> 
> I think the way you fix the problem (if that is what you have in mind) is changing prices and production, not ability to own.



Ah, but the ability to own a gun has had a very significant effect in places such as the UK and Japan, where mortality rates due to guns are extremely low (almost non-existent). Clearly, the ability to own guns has a significant impact in murder and mortality rates.

Your argument focuses on people's intent to kill being the only reason guns are deadly. If that is so, then that's even more reason to prevent guns from getting into their hands. If people have a strong desire to kill others, you don't make guns readily available to everyone because they're a minority. Despite their being a minority (something I will not confirm as I'm stating this purely for the sake of argument), the fact remains homicide rates resulting from guns are too high to ignore.

I don't deny getting rid of guns all over the world won't be an easy task. If someone takes to such an endeavor, I do not expect him/her to succeed within one lifetime, yet it is something I would fully condone.



Cyphon said:


> That wasn't the argument. Your argument was about guns serving a purpose other than killing. My point is that sports serve no purpose other than entertaining. So if we are talking about purpose we should be considering everything and what actual purpose it serves. Off the top of my head sports aren't harmful to society but that is what popped into my head. I am sure there are better examples to use.



Yes. Sports aren't harmful. They're quite the opposite in fact especially if people practice sports themselves. Guns can also serve for sport, as you said, but sports are practiced in very safe environments. That guns would use live rounds on sports events defeats the entire purpose of safe practice in sports.



Cyphon said:


> I can agree with that and it also goes with my above point. Talking about people having access to guns isn't going to go far because of the above problems I mentioned. It just isn't feasible. So the aim should be to stop production of lethal ammunition or to make the price very high. Obviously there will still be what is already out there but again, there is no stopping that.



I guess I can agree with this to the extent where guns are only used for sports and guns aren't lethal. Gun control, and by that I mean lethal guns, does work if you look at countries such as the UK, Japan, Canada and Australia. Simply raising the price of guns will make them accessible to upper classes, thus perhaps opening the way to class warfare which is another thing some people *coughBryanPaulsencough* are worried about.



Cyphon said:


> Cannibalism isn't socially acceptable?
> 
> Seriously though, I am talking about animals.



I know, but saying that guns are useful for hunting, which is essentially killing, comes dangerously close to alluding to the idea of "killing people is ok because killing animals is ok."


----------



## Sanity Check (Jan 21, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> This is perhaps one of the stupidest things I've ever read. Are there Mexican drug cartels in fucking Indiana, Ohio and North Carolina crossing over from the border? The border to where? Canada? The fucking OCEAN?
> 
> You need to stop taking the position to defend the craziest side in every argument, it's making you appear to be a crazy person.
> 
> And even then, citizens can be armed without gun shows. A gun show isn't a place where people just go to look at guns, like a dog show is for dogs. You go there to purchase weapons without background checks from vendors and other people who might have guns.



.

I'll try to make this sound less controversial.

*Question*:  why do americans never consider invading north korea?

We've considered invading iraq and iran.  Countries we feel confident we can defeat easily.  But not north korea.  They have a strong enough military presence to act as an effective deterrent against invasion.  This may suggest guns are not only tools of violence but that they may act as a deterrent which prevents violence.  

If a criminal saw two people walking on a street.

One person is carrying an AK-47.  The other is unarmed.  Which person would a criminal rob?

Of course, they would probably target the person who was unarmed.

This may mean americans who are armed and capable of defending themselves act as a deterrent against crime and violence in the same way north korea's military acts as an effective deterrent against them being invaded by the united states.

Now I'm going to add a twist to this.

Imagine there was a politician, a president, congressman or lawmaker.

There are two citizens.  One citizen has the right to own guns.  The other citizen does not have the right to gun ownership.

Which citizen is more likely to be screwed by politicians, presidents, congressmen, etcetera?

If it is possible that armed citizens and the right to bear arms act as deterrence against crime, violence and political exploitation.

Then, we may have some evidence that guns are not merely tools of violence or bloodshed.  But that the possession and ownership of firearms acts as a deterrence against less than desirable circumstances.

--Imposing harsher regulation, controls or laws against gun ownership may erode said deterrence and upset things in negative ways that aren't so obvious on a superficial level.

The government regulates oil rigs and oil platforms and the only thing we've seen as a result of that regulation are massive oil dumps in the gulf of mexico which destroy the natural ecosystems and habitats of indigenous species, threaten the health of residents in that area exacting a heavy economic toll.

Maybe if the government could manage to effectively regulate things like banks, oil platforms, subprime mortgages and similar things they might be trustworthy and considered an effective regulator of firearms.

But considering recent history, I would say the united states government imposing "regulation" in any shape or form relating to firearms is worse than a complete waste of time and taxpayer funding.


----------



## hcheng02 (Jan 21, 2013)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> .
> 
> I'll try to make this sound less controversial.
> 
> ...



This analysis is hilariously wrong. The US doesn't invade North Korea because it has China backing it up, its isolated and doesn't have any resources. North Korea's military is a joke and its populace is not well armed. China does not have a lot of guns in its society either, as they are heavily regulated there. 

Gun control can still allow the right to bear arms. However, all rights come with restrictions and responsibilities. The freedom of speech does not allow you to yell fire in a crowded theater when there is none. The freedom of religion does not allow human sacrifice. Likewise, guns should not be sold without background checks, and people who are violent criminals, insane, or terrorists should not be able to get guns easily. The examples of oil rigs and subprime mortgages given actually improve the case for regulation. It was lack of government oversight that allowed BP to build rigs while cutting corners, and financial institutions to make wild subprime speculations.


----------



## Mael (Jan 21, 2013)

hcheng you're not getting it.  People here tend to think constitutional rights are absolved from personal responsibilities and legal obligations.


----------



## Roman (Jan 21, 2013)

Mael said:


> hcheng you're not getting it.  People here tend to think constitutional rights are absolved from personal responsibilities and legal obligations.



Law and constitutional rights =! Morality

But that idea is far beyond quite a few people's understanding it seems because the following also applies:

Law and constitutional rights >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Morality


----------



## Mael (Jan 21, 2013)

I SHULD HAF GUNZ AN USE 'EM WHENEVER I WAN HOWEVER I WAN!


----------



## Sanity Check (Jan 21, 2013)

hcheng02 said:


> This analysis is hilariously wrong. The US doesn't invade North Korea because it has China backing it up, its isolated and doesn't have any resources. North Korea's military is a joke and its populace is not well armed. China does not have a lot of guns in its society either, as they are heavily regulated there.
> 
> Gun control can still allow the right to bear arms. However, all rights come with restrictions and responsibilities. The freedom of speech does not allow you to yell fire in a crowded theater when there is none. The freedom of religion does not allow human sacrifice. Likewise, guns should not be sold without background checks, and people who are violent criminals, insane, or terrorists should not be able to get guns easily. The examples of oil rigs and subprime mortgages given actually improve the case for regulation. It was lack of government oversight that allowed BP to build rigs while cutting corners, and financial institutions to make wild subprime speculations.



This would seem to dispute what you've said about North Korea.  Considering someone bothered to write pages explaining why you're wrong, I hope you read it.  Then I hope you watch the documentary about GMO's in my blog as to educate yourself on that topic also.  



> North Korea: The War Game
> Dealing with North Korea could make Iraq look like child's play—and the longer we wait, the harder it will get. That's the message of a Pentagon-style war game involving some of this country's most prominent foreign-policy strategists



I couldn't find the source, but I do remember there being war games and simulations where the north korea actually defeated american forces.

If you thought about it, you might realize the modern soviet union's military was defeated by the taliban.  And the united states is also likely to be defeated by the taliban in afghanistan.

China & resources have nothing to do with it.  Its not feasible to war with north korea and their military power acts as an effective deterrent on that front.  That's the reason invading north korea is never an option put on the table.  It may help if you remembered  and done other things which might be considered acts of war, without repurcussions other than economic blockade.

...

Maybe you didn't get the memo...  subprime mortgages and deepwater horizon are examples of government regulation being insufficient.

Many of you operate until an assumption that gun control and the government having greater control & regulation over firearm sales "fixes" something.

Its a form of belief without evidence.

Subprime mortages occurred because government regulation is too weak and fraught with conflicts of money and self interest to effectively regulate those forms of loans and derivatives.  Deepwater horizon occurred because government regulation is too weak and fraught with conflicts of self interest in terms of big oil lobbying and campaign funding to implement meaningful regulation in terms of oil platform safety standards and the enforcement of said standards.

What evidence, facts or precedents exist to suggest government regulation over firearm sales would be any different from subprime mortgages?

If the government is allowed to regulate the firearm industry to a greater degree and if firearm manufacturers lobby the government and offer to provide campaign funding to candidates if they loosen gun sale policies in return...  Remember the united states gun industry is billions of dollars a year, and producers of firearms may well have millions of dollars to lobby politicians in order to convince them to reduce the scrutiny on background checks and such.

You may well have as much probability of seeing effective or meaningful gun control as you do the probability of seeing taxes raised on the rich.

You would seem to have nothing other than blind faith and belief in a concept that gun control will have a positive result with zero evidence to support it.

.


----------



## Mael (Jan 21, 2013)

Fighting against North Korea wouldn't be like the Taliban because it'd be a lot more of a conventional war against a standing army as compared to a counterinsurgency.  The United States excels in conventional warfare and you know this.


----------



## Enclave (Jan 21, 2013)

Cyphon said:


> 1. There are reasons to own them. Gun collectors, competition shooting with those specific weapons and yes, even self defense even if it is considered an extreme measure. On the other hand, there is no reason you shouldn't be able to own one if you aren't a criminal or crazy.
> 
> 2. It isn't always going to be more dangerous. I would like you to show me how a gun sitting on a table in someones house is more dangerous than a tractor with farmers out working and moving around it.
> 
> Your argument is well, frankly retarded.



I've never seen a shooting competition where the competitors are using assault weapons.  They're generally using rifles.  A gun by the way which has the practical use of hunting animals for food.  Collecting guns isn't a valid reason to own an AK47.  Finally for self defense?  No, you don't need a fucking AK47 to defend your home.

A run sitting on a table in someones house is FAR more dangerous than a tractor moving around.  A gun sitting on a table is in a location with super easy access to some random fucktard picking it up and playing with it or some child not knowing how dangerous it is grabbing it.  Fuck man, do you even know what you're saying?!



> Increase the workers to make up for the speed of tractors. More jobs for people and the work still gets done at the same speed.



You know absolutely nothing about farming do you?



> Anyway, that is getting too far off topic. Point is, there are tons of things that are excessive or dangerous. If we talk about banning one we should start talking about banning a bunch of other shit. Such as cars that go over the speed limit or alcohol.



You are making such outrageous connections.  There's a world of difference between something who's primary purpose is killing and something that can potentially be used for killing but is not designed expressly for that purpose.


----------



## Sygurgh (Jan 21, 2013)

I can't help but sigh each time I read the "gun for hunting" argument.
That's the oldest excuse in the book.


----------



## Stunna (Jan 21, 2013)

I personally don't see what's so cool about collecting guns.


----------



## Enclave (Jan 21, 2013)

Sygurgh said:


> I can't help but sigh each time I read the "gun for hunting" argument.
> That's the oldest excuse in the book.



Gun for hunting is a very valid reason.  Thing is, you don't need an assault weapon for hunting.  You just need a hunting rifle.


----------



## Sygurgh (Jan 21, 2013)

I live in France so I kind-of know what it means to have guns for hunting.
You need a permit, and they don't give you an assault rifle or a glock.
It feels like American can buy guns from their local supermarket.
Hunting is just the conventional excuse.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Jan 21, 2013)




----------



## Hitou Nami (Jan 21, 2013)

I will never understand americans with their love for guns really, its so dumm i cant even think of anything else to discribe it.


----------



## Adrianhamm (Jan 21, 2013)

Enclave said:


> I've never seen a shooting competition where the competitors are using assault weapons.


----------



## Velocity (Jan 21, 2013)

...what the hell? You can buy semi-automatic rifles in *Walmart*?!


----------



## Enclave (Jan 21, 2013)

Lol, I mean a real shooting competition, something internationally recognised.  Not some American only sort of crap.

Show me them using assault weapons in the Olympics and perhaps I'll change my tune.  Until then?  All you need is a freakin' hunting rifle and you don't need a semi-automatic for hunting so you can get rid of all those as well.



Velocity said:


> ...what the hell? You can buy semi-automatic rifles in *Walmart*?!



Of course you can, it's Murika after all.


----------



## Velocity (Jan 21, 2013)

Enclave said:


> Of course you can, it's Murika after all.



"We've run out of milk! I'll just pop into Walmart. Anything you want while I'm there?"
"Yeah! Can you pick me up the newest Playboy, some hard boiled candy... and an assault rifle?"


----------



## Ultra Instinct Vegito (Jan 21, 2013)

I only need a gun for protection that is all.


----------



## Adrianhamm (Jan 21, 2013)

Enclave said:


> Lol, I mean a real shooting competition, something internationally recognised.  Not some American only sort of crap.


You mean like baseball, football? Murikkkans innovate!!!!



> Show me them using assault weapons in the Olympics and perhaps I'll change my tune.  Until then?  All you need is a freakin' hunting rifle and you don't need a semi-automatic for hunting so you can get rid of all those as well.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you can, it's Murika after all.


La la la la Do not watch if you are squeamish about animals getting shot!
*Spoiler*: __ 



[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVlrSVsAdpI[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## stream (Jan 21, 2013)

Enclave said:


> I've never seen a shooting competition where the competitors are using assault weapons.


----------



## Enclave (Jan 21, 2013)

Adrianhamm said:


> You mean like baseball, football? Murikkkans innovate!!!!



Baseball == Rounders
Football == Slow and boring version of Rugby.




> La la la la
> *Spoiler*: __
> 
> 
> ...



The fact that you can take down a wild boar with an assault weapon doesn't suddenly mean that proper non-semi automatic hunting rifle cannot do it.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Jan 21, 2013)

Velocity said:


> "We've run out of milk! I'll just pop into Walmart. Anything you want while I'm there?"
> "Yeah! Can you pick me up the newest Playboy, some hard boiled candy... and an assault rifle?"


Don't be silly.

Walmart doesn't carry Playboy, they're a family friendly store.


----------



## Ultra Instinct Vegito (Jan 21, 2013)

I got a lot of neighbors who have like 15 different kinds of guns and weapons just for "show".


----------



## stream (Jan 21, 2013)

These are collections… mostly useless, just like stamp collections.
But I guess for a lot of people, it makes them feel hardcore.


----------



## Adrianhamm (Jan 21, 2013)

Enclave said:


> Baseball == Rounders
> Football == Slow and boring version of Rugby.


Regardless it is done.




> The fact that you can take down a wild boar with an assault weapon doesn't suddenly mean that proper non-semi automatic hunting rifle cannot do it.


You want deer, moose, coyote, wolf, cougars, bear or any other animal running around the US?

If you miss or even if you a hit death is not always instant or assured, which can turn into a very bad day if you don't have the ability to follow up on your shots.


----------



## Sygurgh (Jan 21, 2013)

Do you want a rocket launcher to go with your machine-gun for when you go hunting coyotes? Let's add some silver bullets for werewolves.
Let's get real, the majority don't buy guns to hunt wild animals; you'll find more nuts that want to protect themselves from the government.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 21, 2013)

That hunting excuse is a load of bullshit.


----------



## Abanikochan (Jan 21, 2013)

If you need a semi-automatic to hunt then you should seriously consider a new sport or hobby you don't suck in.


----------



## Megaharrison (Jan 21, 2013)

I don't have the heart to use my massive arsenal on cute fluffy animals


----------



## Velocity (Jan 21, 2013)

Adrianhamm said:


> You want deer, moose, coyote, wolf, cougars, bear or any other animal running around the US?



Funnily enough, before guns, everyone used things like walls to keep out wildlife. All of the animals you listed, especially bears, don't go near human settlements unless they're encouraged to, as well. Guns aren't necessary for protection and it's not our right to cull the population growth of wildlife when we're the biggest offenders of overpopulation.

I mean, you do realise this is their planet as well, right? We might like to write on paper that we claim this patch of grass or that one, but you can't actually own a part of the planet.


----------



## Ultra Instinct Vegito (Jan 21, 2013)

Yo velocity  do any of your family members own any weapons?


----------



## Hand Banana (Jan 21, 2013)

Velocity said:


> Funnily enough, before guns, everyone used things like walls to keep out wildlife.



Or these things called hunting bows.


----------



## hammer (Jan 21, 2013)

how about fists, real men fight bears with fists


----------



## Adrianhamm (Jan 21, 2013)




----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 21, 2013)

hammer said:


> how about fists, real men fight bears with fists



PHOENIX SMASHER


----------



## Enclave (Jan 21, 2013)

Adrianhamm said:


>


----------



## TSC (Jan 21, 2013)

Real Men use bows to hunt(or fists like Hammer implied ).

Guns are overrated. Too bad this isn't an anime like world where

swords>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>guns.


----------



## Enclave (Jan 22, 2013)

TSC said:


> Real Men use bows to hunt(or fists like Hammer implied ).
> 
> Guns are overrated. Too bad this isn't an anime like world where
> 
> swords>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>guns.



Swords and bows are both WAY cooler than guns, who cares if they're not as effective of killing machines.

I actually own a sword AND a bow


----------



## TSC (Jan 22, 2013)

Enclave said:


> I actually own a sword AND a bow



Same here.


----------



## Adrianhamm (Jan 22, 2013)

Enclave said:


> You ARE aware that idiot went out of his way to get that close to the deer right?  It didn't just attack him.  It was on freakin' TV years ago.
> 
> Anyways, as long as you actually think a semi-automatic weapon is needed for hunting it's pointless to discuss anything gun related with you, you're too far gone already.



Between that and the doe piss that he used to mask his scent, yes I am aware. That is why I pulled it up.

 I used to be an idealist when I was in high school and college, then I had to get a job in the real world.


----------



## Enclave (Jan 22, 2013)

Adrianhamm said:


> Between that and the doe piss that he used to mask his scent, yes I am aware. That is why I pulled it up.
> 
> I used to be an idealist when I was in high school and college, then I had to get a job in the real world.



I feel bad for you.  I have a job in the real world and I still don't think assault weapons are needed.  Neither does my wife nor our friends, all of whom are out of college and have real jobs.  Hell, my wife grew up in rural Alberta and is pro-gun control.


----------



## Roman (Jan 22, 2013)

Zezima said:


> Yo velocity  do any of your family members own any weapons?



I doubt it, seeing as guns are banned in the UK. And we also have far less murder happening here than the US even proportionately.



Adrianhamm said:


> Between that and the doe piss that he used to mask his scent, yes I am aware. That is why I pulled it up.
> 
> I used to be an idealist when I was in high school and college, then I had to get a job in the real world.



I got a job in the real world too. And I became more and more anti-gun after that. So getting a job in the real world doesn't have to kill your ideals. It's actually strengthened them in my case. While I understand everyone is different, there are facts which are too obvious to just ignore.


----------



## Amatsu (Jan 22, 2013)

For some reason I'm surprised someone hasn't drawn a comic yet where a redneck is pointing a gun at the reader while screaming.

"Don't you be taking my guns! This is America! I have rights! I'll kill you all if I have too in order to keep mah rights and mah guns so you best be blaming dem vidya games instead."

Because that seems to be how most gun advocates come across as being.


----------



## Roman (Jan 22, 2013)

Amatsu said:


> For some reason I'm surprised someone hasn't drawn a comic yet where a redneck is pointing a gun at the reader while screaming.
> 
> "Don't you be taking my guns! This is America! I have rights! I'll kill you all if I have too in order to keep mah rights and mah guns so you best be blaming dem vidya games instead."
> 
> Because that seems to be how most gun advocates come across as being.


----------



## Amatsu (Jan 22, 2013)

Freedan said:


>



I'd like to think that no human could ever be as overexaggerated as a comic artist could make him....

Well turns out I'm wrong.


----------



## Roman (Jan 22, 2013)

Amatsu said:


> I'd like to think that no human could ever be as overexaggerated as a comic artist could make him....
> 
> Well turns out I'm wrong.



You know what they say. Truth is stranger than fiction.


----------



## Ultra Instinct Vegito (Jan 22, 2013)

How do people protect themselves in the U.K in case of burglary/crimes?


----------



## Roman (Jan 22, 2013)

Zezima said:


> How do people protect themselves in the U.K in case of burglary/crimes?



The idea of self-defense without guns is that unreal to you?

First off, at first it might look like the UK has more violent crime than the US but a lot of it also has to do with the way violent crime is treated and recorded. The US only accounts for simple or aggravated assault, robbery and rape whereas here, all violence against the person such as sexual offenses (which does not necessarily mean rape).

In my experience, at least, I've never come across a situation where someone broke in and I had to defend myself. If such a thing were to happen, one can always have things like a cricket bat. Typically, the most dangerous weapon a burglar could carry is a pocket knife. Unlike in the US, hardly anyone here carries guns, so as it is an incredibly strange and foreign idea for you not to have to protect yourself with a gun, it's an equally strange and foreign idea for us to feel the need to own a gun to defend ourselves.


----------



## Ultra Instinct Vegito (Jan 22, 2013)

U.K. sounds like a great place then imo.


----------



## Adrianhamm (Jan 22, 2013)

Enclave said:


> I feel bad for you.  I have a job in the real world and I still don't think assault weapons are needed.  Neither does my wife nor our friends, all of whom are out of college and have real jobs.  Hell, my wife grew up in rural Alberta and is pro-gun control.


Why? I have seen what can be done and the new possibilities that are coming and I feel good about it. I used to live in the an urban area that had strict gun control and moved to a rural area.


> I got a job in the real world too. And I became more and more anti-gun after that. So getting a job in the real world doesn't have to kill your ideals. It's actually strengthened them in my case. While I understand everyone is different, there are facts which are too obvious to just ignore.


 My ideals haven't been killed, they changed as I became responsible for more than just myself. You are more likely to get beat to death than get killed with an assault weapon, if you don't believe me check the FBI's Uniform Crime reporting stats.


----------



## Roman (Jan 22, 2013)

Adrianhamm said:


> My ideals haven't been killed, they changed as I became responsible for more than just myself. You are more likely to get beat to death than get killed with an assault weapon, if you don't believe me check the FBI's Uniform Crime reporting stats.



And you're more likely to die as a result of firearms than by fists. Seriously dude. Bryan Paulsen already tried that with me and it didn't work.


----------



## Mael (Jan 22, 2013)

Ideals...that was your first mistake Adrian.


----------



## Adrianhamm (Jan 22, 2013)

Freedan said:


> And you're more likely to die as a result of firearms than by fists. Seriously dude. Bryan Paulsen already tried that with me and it didn't work.


The stats are there all you have to do is go look at them.


----------



## Roman (Jan 22, 2013)

Adrianhamm said:


> The stats are there all you have to do is go look at them.



You don't get it do you?

FIREARMS: Includes *ALL* guns i.e. Handguns, Assault Rifles, Hunting Rifles, etc.

Your own link proves approx. 70% of all murders are caused by FIREARMS.

2011 Stats

Total Murders: 12,664
Total Firearm murders: 8,583

Total firearm murders as a percentage of total murders:

(8583/12664)*100=67.8%

67.8% of all murders in the US are caused by FIREARMS.


----------



## Blue (Jan 22, 2013)

I think he's saying that banning rifles is pointless.

I happen to agree.

But it's the first step on the road to removing all firearms.

What this chart doesn't show is that for every murder by firearm, 2 people are killed by firearms without being murdered. Over 30,000 a year total.

That's ridiculous. It's not criminals we need to remove firearms from the hands of; it's everyone.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Jan 22, 2013)

Statistics:
In 2011 there were 8583 homicides using firearms in the US.
There are ~200,000,000 privately owned firearms in the US.
Thus there are 0.0004292 murders/firearm in the US.

In 2011 there were 728 homicides using "personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc)" in the US.
There are ~1,256,000,000 hands/fists/feet in the US.
Thus there are 0.0000005796 murders/personal weapon in the US.

Thus you are ~741 times more likely to be killed by a firearm than you are to be beaten to death by an unarmed person.

(See, I can abuse statistics too!)


----------



## Roman (Jan 22, 2013)

Blue said:


> I think he's saying that banning rifles is pointless.
> 
> I happen to agree.
> 
> ...



What I think most people don't get about what I'm saying is that even I don't think removing assault rifles will have a huge impact, but I encourage everyone to trace back all my posts. They'll find I consistently said what you said here: it's the first step toward curbing the gun culture in the US i.e. removing all firearms (FIREARMS) and revising the second amendment. They'll also see I'm not pretending this will happen overnight, but over the span of a few decades. Which is what Bryan Paulsen and Bryan 2.0 here aka Adrianhamm don't get or deliberately ignore.


----------



## Velocity (Jan 22, 2013)

I think the best evidence for the benefit of banning guns is actually the UK. It is an act that will never fully prevent gun-related deaths, but it will severely reduce the number. The last big mass shooting in the UK happened in 2010 - before that it was 1996 and, before that, 1987. We still have them, but they are pretty rare. Last year, I think there was about 160 deaths in the UK due to firearms. America has six times the population of the UK, roughly, so if they were in the same situation as us with a proportionate number of incidents, wouldn't less than a thousand deaths a year due to firearms be a massive improvement over the eight and a half thousand from 2011? 

Even if banning guns was only half as effective as I say, you'd still be saving about 3'750 lives every year... Isn't that worth a try?


----------



## Utopia Realm (Jan 22, 2013)

Velocity said:


> I think the best evidence for the benefit of banning guns is actually the UK. It is an act that will never fully prevent gun-related deaths, but it will severely reduce the number. The last big mass shooting in the UK happened in 2010 - before that it was 1996 and, before that, 1987. We still have them, but they are pretty rare. Last year, I think there was about 160 deaths in the UK due to firearms. America has six times the population of the UK, roughly, so if they were in the same situation as us with a proportionate number of incidents, wouldn't less than a thousand deaths a year due to firearms be a massive improvement over the eight and a half thousand from 2011?
> 
> Even if banning guns was only half as effective as I say, you'd still be saving about 3'750 lives every year... Isn't that worth a try?



Pro-gun nuts, members (NRA) and regular joes wanting to keep gun laws/restrictions as they are now. I certianly feel that cutting down the # of guns and adding more gun laws would def. help the country atm.


----------



## Roman (Jan 22, 2013)

Velocity said:


> I think the best evidence for the benefit of banning guns is actually the UK. It is an act that will never fully prevent gun-related deaths, but it will severely reduce the number. The last big mass shooting in the UK happened in 2010 - before that it was 1996 and, before that, 1987. We still have them, but they are pretty rare. Last year, I think there was about 160 deaths in the UK due to firearms. America has six times the population of the UK, roughly, so if they were in the same situation as us with a proportionate number of incidents, wouldn't less than a thousand deaths a year due to firearms be a massive improvement over the eight and a half thousand from 2011?
> 
> Even if banning guns was only half as effective as I say, you'd still be saving about 3'750 lives every year... Isn't that worth a try?



Small correction with regards to propotions. The UK in 2010 had 0.25 gun deaths per 100,000 people. By comparison, the US had 10.26 deaths per 100,000 people. Even proportionately, we've had a lot less gun deaths.


----------



## Blue (Jan 22, 2013)

I was about to make a point, but then decided I didn't really want to. So simply consider the following:

In Switzerland, literally every family has an assault rifle, because conscription for males is universal and they keep their rifles when their service is done.

Their firearm death rate is considerably more than the UK, but considerably less than the US. 

Discuss.


----------



## Megaharrison (Jan 22, 2013)

Blue said:


> I was about to make a point, but then decided I didn't really want to. So simply consider the following:
> 
> In Switzerland, literally every family has an assault rifle, because conscription for males is universal and they keep their rifles when their service is done.
> 
> ...



It's the same with us. My family has AK-47's and Galil's galore.

It has to do with instilling responsibility and discipline through conscription. Not something that would work out in the US very well.


----------



## Mider T (Jan 22, 2013)

Velocity said:


> I think the best evidence for the benefit of banning guns is actually the UK. It is an act that will never fully prevent gun-related deaths, but it will severely reduce the number. The last big mass shooting in the UK happened in 2010 - before that it was 1996 and, before that, 1987. We still have them, but they are pretty rare. Last year, I think there was about 160 deaths in the UK due to firearms. America has six times the population of the UK, roughly, so if they were in the same situation as us with a proportionate number of incidents, wouldn't less than a thousand deaths a year due to firearms be a massive improvement over the eight and a half thousand from 2011?
> 
> Even if banning guns was only half as effective as I say, you'd still be saving about 3'750 lives every year... Isn't that worth a try?



Banning guns will never happen, so bringing it up is pointless.


----------



## Mael (Jan 22, 2013)

Bill the Troll said:


> It's the same with us. My family has AK-47's and Galil's galore.
> 
> It has to do with instilling responsibility and discipline through conscription. Not something that would work out in the US very well.



Yes but your conditioning also comes from the fact your neighbors all want you dead so you tend to shrug off personal beefs and paranoia as compared to Americans who are not only nutters over the Constitution but naturally paranoid of their own government.  I don't see a lot of Israelis thinking the Man's out to get them.


----------



## Megaharrison (Jan 22, 2013)

Mael said:


> Yes but your conditioning also comes from the fact your neighbors all want you dead so you tend to shrug off personal beefs and paranoia as compared to Americans who are not only nutters over the Constitution but naturally paranoid of their own government.  I don't see a lot of Israelis thinking the Man's out to get them.



Well, that's an advantage of national service/conscription in a democratic society. It makes "the man" down to your level and you become "the man" in a sense. A People's Army as opposed to a distant police force.


----------



## Mael (Jan 22, 2013)

Bill the Troll said:


> Well, that's an advantage of national service/conscription in a democratic society. It makes "the man" down to your level and you become "the man" in a sense. A People's Army as opposed to a distant police force.



Oh God the level of butthurt in that grand of a scale in America...


----------



## Megaharrison (Jan 22, 2013)

*Spoiler*: __ 









How gun control is done in Israel


----------



## Mael (Jan 22, 2013)

Meanwhile we have fucking whiners over here that'd rather see us like Costa Rica, deprived of a military to begin with.


----------



## Blue (Jan 22, 2013)

Bill the Troll said:


> It has to do with instilling responsibility and discipline through conscription. Not something that would work out in the US very well.


I won't say that's not a factor at all, but I don't think it's a big one.

I think it has more to do with the disparity in culture, ethnicity, education, and income in the US. Especially culture and ethnicity.

If people believe mass shootings by crazy white people constitute any significant part of the firearm death rate or homicide rate in the US, they should really do more research. It's diminishingly small. 5 one day, 9 the next.
Compared to 30000 a year. If you considered ONLY mass shootings in the US, the US death rate would probably be below the UK's overall rate.

Then examine only the murder rate, perhaps 10000 or so a year. Of those, around 2000, or 20%, are gang-related.

Does Israel have problems with gangs killing each other? Does Switzerland? Of course not. Because youth are universally occupied with other things than being street hoods, such as education and, in Israel's case, hating Arabs.

Include also murders which aren't gang related but are, like gang violence, related to the perpetrator and/or the victim being stupid, poor, uneducated motherfuckers, and you're accounting for over half of all homicides in the US.

The fact that we have this disparity in income and education is, these days, mostly an artifact of our immigrant culture, which brings us all the world's best and brightest, maintains our high birth rate, and engenders American cultural dominance, but also brings us the sweepings of the street the world over.

Compare to ethnically or culturally uniform nations like Switzerland or Israel or, indeed, the UK, and the disparity is glaring.

With each passing generation being exposed to opportunities for educational and economic uplift, immigrant families ultimately stop being stupid, poor, uneducated motherfuckers and join the population of successful Americans. Irish immigrants were once called "potato ^ (use bro)" and banned from working most jobs with ubiquitous "NINA" (no Irish need apply) signs. A century later, they are integrated with the American population wholly and Irish names are considered quintessentially American. Bill O'Reilly is a potato ^ (use bro)? Someone ought to tell him.

However immigration continues, more or less unabated. And so while previous generations of immigrants drive the American people to ever greater heights (American decline? Don't make me laugh.) the new generations, while the vast majority come with the best of intentions, continue to provide new underclasses of poverty and cultural disparity which give rise to violence and strife.

And now you know the real reason America both leads and tails the first world in every category.

That aside, it'd be nice if all the gangs and idiots didn't have firearms to shoot each other with. It would help.


----------



## Megaharrison (Jan 22, 2013)

Blue said:


> Does Israel have problems with gangs killing each other? Does Switzerland? Of course not. Because youth are universally occupied with other things than being street hoods, such as education and, in Israel's case, hating Arabs



You know us well


----------



## EvilMoogle (Jan 22, 2013)

Blue said:


> I was about to make a point, but then decided I didn't really want to. So simply consider the following:
> 
> In Switzerland, literally every family has an assault rifle, because conscription for males is universal and they keep their rifles when their service is done.
> 
> ...


There are too many other variables though.

Suppose I say "well, both Switzerland and the UK are far less religious than the US, let's pick some religious nations to compare instead" and came up with:

Iraq: (Supports "more guns, less homicide")
Gun ownership per 100 people: 34.2 (US is 88.8)
Homicides / 100000: 2 (US is 5.1)

Fiji: (Supports "less guns, less homicide")
Gun ownership per 100 people: 0.5 (US is 88.8)
Homicides / 100000: 0.9 (US is 5.1)

Peru: (Supports "more guns, more homicide")
Gun ownership per 100 people: 18.8 (US is 88.8)
Homicides / 100000: 10.18 (US is 5.1)

(In the 10 ten most religious nations I couldn't find a good example of "less guns, less homicide")

*Spoiler*: _raw data_ 




```
United States    88.8    3.6    5.1    
Ghana        2    *    1.8
Nigeria        1.5    *    1.3
Armenia        12.5    0.3    2.7
Fiji        0.5    *    0.9
Macedonia    12.52    1.2    1.9
Romania        1.2    0.04    2.0
Iraq        34.2    *    2.0
Kenya        6.4    *    4.41
Peru        18.8    2.6    10.18
Brazil        8    18.1    22.7
```


----------



## Blue (Jan 22, 2013)

> There are too many other variables though.


Precisely.

(Although I hope you're just using religion as an example).


----------



## Ben Tennyson (Jan 22, 2013)

Now there was a shooting in the lonestar collage in Texas.


----------



## Sasuke_Bateman (Jan 22, 2013)

another shooting


----------



## Mael (Jan 22, 2013)

Troll limey being troll. 

/notracistlookupthedefinition


----------



## EvilMoogle (Jan 22, 2013)

Blue said:


> Precisely.
> 
> (Although I hope you're just using religion as an example).


Yeah, religiosity was simply one other random alternative (compared to the "first world" European standard generally used).

At the end of a day you can't isolate and compare countries in so simple a manner (off the top of my head things-that-might-make-a-difference-in-gun-crime: firearms law, wealth discrepancy, medical-care, number of "type A" personalities per capita, average number of vacation days enjoyed by workers, frequency of sex per capita, population density, etc, etc).


----------



## Linkdarkside (Jan 22, 2013)




----------



## hadou (Jan 22, 2013)

*Shooting on Texas college campus, reports say*



> At least two students were shot at Lone Star College in Texas on Tuesday.
> According to Jed Young, a spokesman for the school, the shooting "involving two individuals" took place shortly before 12:30 p.m. local time. Two students were shot in the crossfire, the spokesman said, and at least one of the suspected shooters was shot and taken into custody. The extent of their injuries were not known. A second shooter fled the campus, the spokesman said.
> It's unclear if the suspected shooters were students at the school.
> An alert posted on the school's website shortly before 1 p.m. warned students to take shelter.
> ...



http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/shooting-texas-college-campus-reports-191439016.html


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Jan 22, 2013)

hadou said:


> Shooting on Texas college campus, reports say



I read about that a little bit ago.  Not much information is out yet, but it sounds more like run of the mill gang violence then someone out to murder random people.  Also in a gun-free zone.


----------



## Bryan Paulsen (Jan 22, 2013)

Freedan said:


> What I think most people don't get about what I'm saying is that even I don't think removing assault rifles will have a huge impact, but I encourage everyone to trace back all my posts. They'll find I consistently said what you said here: it's the first step toward curbing the gun culture in the US i.e. removing all firearms (FIREARMS) and revising the second amendment. They'll also see I'm not pretending this will happen overnight, but over the span of a few decades. Which is what Bryan Paulsen and Bryan 2.0 here aka Adrianhamm don't get or deliberately ignore.



We know exactly what you're trying to do, and that's why we're pointing out the emphasis on rifles is _asinine_. The problem with gun violence lies in _handguns_, but gun-control advocates are taking their incrementalist approach, that we are already completely aware of, in order to enhance the monopoly on force so that when the time comes to confiscate firearms the people will have even less means of resistance. You want to forcefully control society, and do it with as little bloodshed as possible.

Pro-natural rights advocates, like myself, *have no interest in forfeiting our property, or our rights, to suit your needs, and will resist.*

We have no interest in negotiating with people that fully intend to abrogate our rights. If you want to force people to live in the society you want, then you had better be prepared to kill me for it. Because the society you envision will require exactly that.

_Molon Labe_.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Jan 22, 2013)

Just an honest disagreement between folk.  If it weren't for laws against dueling then they wouldn't have had to resort to a shootout on campus, they could have settled things in a quiet, civilized manner.

Preventing of dueling goes against the Constitution and the ideals of the founding fathers.  End unjust laws against dueling.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 22, 2013)

Ben Tennyson said:


> Now there was a shooting in the lonestar collage in Texas.



At a collage, really? 



The Space Cowboy said:


> I read about that a little bit ago.  Not much information is out yet, but it sounds more like run of the mill gang violence then someone out to murder random people.  Also in a gun-free zone.



Yeah I took a class there a few years back, it's how I learned Photoshop. 

It does sound like some gang shit though. That gun-free zone sure saved some lives, though.


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Jan 22, 2013)

> Jed Young, a Lone Star College spokesperson, said he believes two students were shot in crossfire as two people shot at each other at the Texas community college Tuesday.  Major Armando Tello said he believes three people were injured in the shooting.  Young said he believes the situation has been mitigated and the school is under control.  One suspected shooter is in custody, and the other fled the campus, Young said.  The school has been evacuated.  Young said he cannot confirm it, but does not believe anyone is dead at this time.
> 
> Read more:



More info is given. But this really doesn't sound like a random murderer gunning down people in a theater or a schoolhouse, or a mentally ill person with a gun so it won't fit anyone's mass shooting/gun control narratives that well.  Concealed firearms aren't legal on campus anyways.


----------



## Velocity (Jan 22, 2013)

Freedan said:


> Small correction with regards to propotions. The UK in 2010 had 0.25 gun deaths per 100,000 people. By comparison, the US had 10.26 deaths per 100,000 people. Even proportionately, we've had a lot less gun deaths.



I worked out that, even if the two countries had the same population (by reducing the American population to one fifth of its current size), the United Kingdom still has only 2.44% the number of gun related deaths as those in the United States (something like 158 compared to 6'467). "A lot less" wouldn't even begin to cover it.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Jan 22, 2013)

> Molon Labe.



Yeah, that fucking mantra worked out so well for the Spartans. They're gonna molon the fuck out of "natural" rights activists.


----------



## Mael (Jan 22, 2013)

Bryan Paulsen said:


> We know exactly what you're trying to do, and that's why we're pointing out the emphasis on rifles is _asinine_. The problem with gun violence lies in _handguns_, but gun-control advocates are taking their incrementalist approach, that we are already completely aware of, in order to enhance the monopoly on force so that when the time comes to confiscate firearms the people will have even less means of resistance. You want to forcefully control society, and do it with as little bloodshed as possible.
> 
> Pro-natural rights advocates, like myself, *have no interest in forfeiting our property, or our rights, to suit your needs, and will resist.*
> 
> ...



Get over yourself, gymhead.  The fact remains that it's lax overall and it's been far too generous of freedom especially in the hands of a dumber and more paranoid population, Arizona Q.E.D., and how it always seems to be states like yours that keep propping up populists and crazies.


----------



## Ippy (Jan 22, 2013)

Bryan Paulsen said:


> We know exactly what you're trying to do, and that's why we're pointing out the emphasis on rifles is _asinine_. The problem with gun violence lies in _handguns_, but gun-control advocates are taking their incrementalist approach, that we are already completely aware of, in order to enhance the monopoly on force so that when the time comes to confiscate firearms the people will have even less means of resistance. You want to forcefully control society, and do it with as little bloodshed as possible.
> 
> Pro-natural rights advocates, like myself, *have no interest in forfeiting our property, or our rights, to suit your needs, and will resist.*
> 
> ...


Keep it in your pants, big boy.

Basically, what your saying is that you reject the truth that our laws are subject to _change_ (based on the needs of the people), and thus is a part of _how our society runs_, and feel that all laws should remain static as they are now.... forcing everyone else to live in the society that _you want_.


----------



## Bryan Paulsen (Jan 22, 2013)

Elim Rawne said:


> Yeah, that fucking mantra worked out so well for the Spartans. They're gonna molon the fuck out of "natural" rights activists.



The goal is not to win. The goal is to deliver into their hands pyrrhic victories. The phrase is perfectly well suited to what will probably happen.

The line in the sand has been drawn. If the Authoritarians are prepared to cross it, then let the chips fall where they may.


----------



## Revolution (Jan 22, 2013)

EvilMoogle said:


> Just an honest disagreement between folk.  If it weren't for laws against dueling then they wouldn't have had to resort to a shootout on campus, they could have settled things in a quiet, *civilized *manner.
> 
> Preventing of dueling goes against the Constitution and the ideals of the founding fathers.  End unjust laws against dueling.



  What makes you think these people are "civilized"?


----------



## Mael (Jan 22, 2013)

Bryan Paulsen said:


> The goal is not to win. The goal is to deliver into their hands pyrrhic victories. The phrase is perfectly well suited to what will probably happen.
> 
> The line in the sand has been drawn. If the Authoritarians are prepared to cross it, then let the chips fall where they may.



What a fucking poser.  Don't let them take your Claymores and JDAMs, steroided-one.


----------



## Ippy (Jan 22, 2013)

What the fuck am I reading?





Bryan Paulsen said:


> The goal is not to win. The goal is to deliver into their hands pyrrhic victories. The phrase is perfectly well suited to what will probably happen.
> 
> The line in the sand has been drawn. If the Authoritarians are prepared to cross it, then let the chips fall where they may.


You sound like a fucking lunatic.

Are you seriously implying that you will resort to force if stricter gun laws are enacted?

You are heavily implying that you're willing to take away another person's right to live, if they take away your right to bear arms... which you have to protect your right to live?


----------



## Elim Rawne (Jan 22, 2013)

Bryan Paulsen said:


> The goal is not to win. The goal is to deliver into their hands pyrrhic victories. The phrase is perfectly well suited to what will probably happen.
> 
> The line in the sand has been drawn. If the Authoritarians are prepared to cross it, then let the chips fall where they may.



You're not gonna deliver them pyrrhic victories. You're just going to be remembered as another loon.


----------



## Ippy (Jan 22, 2013)

According to the most extreme of the pro-gun crowd, imaginary threats against their rights >>>>> real and tangible threats against human lives.


----------



## Bryan Paulsen (Jan 22, 2013)

MMAthematician said:


> Keep it in your pants, big boy.
> 
> Basically, what your saying is that you reject the truth that our laws are subject to _change_ (based on the needs of the people), and thus is a part of _how our society runs_, and feel that all laws should remain static as they are now.... forcing everyone else to live in the society that _you want_.



Relativism does not form the basis of an intellectual argument _vis a vis_ the abrogation of rights. Any "need of the people" that deny the rights of individuals stems from an _appeal to popularity_, and is rightly rejected due to the implicit relativism.

Laws are supposed to be reactionary, dedicated to the consequences of transgressing the rights of others. Laws that do not fall under this category are unjust laws.



			
				Mael said:
			
		

> Get over yourself, gymhead. The fact remains that it's lax overall and it's been far too generous of freedom especially in the hands of a dumber and more paranoid population, Arizona Q.E.D., and how it always seems to be states like yours that keep propping up populists and crazies.



Oh look, it's the "the people are too stupid to be free, and therefore need to be controlled by the State" argument. I could just as well argue you're both too stupid *and* too physically weak to be free, but that'd make me a hypocrite. I'm the guy that would defend your right to say and do what you please so long as you don't aggress against the rights of others, while you're the guy that believes he is just smart enough to know _how_ people need to be controlled, but stupid enough that he also needs controlling.

There is great irony in citing the "paranoid population" when you're the one so afraid of "freedom especially in the hands of the dumber...population".

While the New Testatment is laughable, I will leave you with this quote that serves its purpose well:

Matthew 7:4

_How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?[/QUOTE]_


----------



## Blue (Jan 22, 2013)

Bryan Paulsen said:


> The goal is not to win. The goal is to deliver into their hands pyrrhic victories. The phrase is perfectly well suited to what will probably happen.
> 
> The line in the sand has been drawn. If the Authoritarians are prepared to cross it, then let the chips fall where they may.



Sounds good.

I respect your position, and I am loathe to allow the erosion of constitutional rights, even unnecessary ones, lest the necessary ones be eroded along with them - which is a position the Supreme Court takes as well - but let what must be done be done for the greater good. Tens of thousands of people die every year in America because of guns, and the majority aren't even murders. Deaths that would not and could not have happened if guns weren't a factor.

And so if a handful of fanatics must die tomorrow that untold multitudes might live in the future, that is a price well worth paying.

And make no mistake, they will die. Quickly and with little account.


----------



## Mael (Jan 22, 2013)

Bryan Paulsen said:


> Oh look, it's the "the people are too stupid to be free, and therefore need to be controlled by the State" argument. I could just as well argue you're both too stupid *and* too physically weak to be free, but that'd make me a hypocrite. I'm the guy that would defend your right to say and do what you please so long as you don't aggress against the rights of others, while you're the guy that believes he is just smart enough to know _how_ people need to be controlled, but stupid enough that he also needs controlling.
> 
> There is great irony in citing the "paranoid population" when you're the one so afraid of "freedom especially in the hands of the dumber...population".
> 
> ...


_

But my fear is healthy.  Stupidity, as in your case, ought to be feared.  That's why there needs to be order and control, because fucking fringe meatheads like you will actually say stupid shit like killing people all for your precious guns.  The Bible is fuckall compared to the current situation of continuous misinformation and profiteering schmucks like Rush telling you that the Big Bad Gubment out ta git yer gunz.

You're the kind that'd shoot immigrants just because they "threaten" your way of life.

You make me sick.  How about you Moron Labe yourself in front of traffic?_


----------



## Bryan Paulsen (Jan 22, 2013)

MMAthematician said:


> What the fuck am I reading?You sound like a fucking lunatic.
> 
> Are you seriously implying that you will resort to force if stricter gun laws are enacted?



The reaction would be to confiscation, actually. Given the endgame mentioned by poster _Freedan_, the endgame _is_ confiscation with him.

Maybe you're different, who knows.



> You are heavily implying that you're willing to take away another person's right to live, if they take away your right to bear arms... which you have to protect your right to live?



Let's be perfectly clear - there is no implication, this is a concrete statement.

The initiation of aggression against my person forfeits the rights of the aggressor, rendering all responses to said aggression inherently ethical, that is the logical basis of self-defense. If you subvert my right of self-defense, which requires an act of aggression, your right to life is forfeit.



Elim Rawne said:


> You're not gonna deliver them pyrrhic victories. You're just going to be remembered as another loon.



Maybe so. We'll just have to find out, won't we?


----------



## Mael (Jan 22, 2013)

> Maybe so. We'll just have to find out, won't we?



We do have means of reporting. 



> The initiation of aggression against my person forfeits the rights of the aggressor, rendering all responses to said aggression inherently ethical, that is the logical basis of self-defense. If you subvert my right of self-defense, which requires an act of aggression, your right to life is forfeit.



Find yourself meeting a hailstorm of police gunfire, please.


----------



## Megaharrison (Jan 22, 2013)

AR-15 vs. B-1 Lancer. Who will win. More at 11.


----------



## Mael (Jan 22, 2013)

Bill the Troll said:


> AR-15 vs. B-1 Lancer. Who will win. More at 11.



THE FREEDUM OF CONSTITUSHINS AN' ANTI-GUBMENTS LIBERTARIANS WINZ.

Don't be takin' Bryan's M2 .50 caliber guns nao...or his Sidewinders.  He'll kill you for it.


----------



## Bryan Paulsen (Jan 22, 2013)

Blue said:


> Sounds good.
> 
> I respect your position, and I am loathe to allow the erosion of constitutional rights, even unnecessary ones, lest the necessary ones be eroded along with them - which is a position the Supreme Court takes as well - but let what must be done be done for the greater good. Tens of thousands of people die every year in America because of guns, and the majority aren't even murders. Deaths that would not and could not have happened if guns weren't a factor.
> 
> ...



Out of the Utilitarian's mouth and to God's ears. Let the chips fall where they may. 



Mael said:


> But my fear is healthy.  Stupidity, as in your case, ought to be feared.  That's why there needs to be order and control, because fucking fringe meatheads like you will actually say stupid shit like killing people all for your precious guns.  The Bible is fuckall compared to the current situation of continuous misinformation and profiteering schmucks like Rush telling you that the Big Bad Gubment out ta git yer gunz.
> 
> You're the kind that'd shoot immigrants just because they "threaten" your way of life.
> 
> You make me sick.  How about you Moron Labe yourself in front of traffic?



"Fears always springs from ignorance." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

You feel the need to control me, because you fear me. You fear me, because you are ignorant of what I represent. You would initiate aggression against my person, even though I haven't done anything to you, nor do I have any intention of doing so. Only in the event you initiate aggression against me will I respond in kind.

That really says all that needs to be said about your ethics. They're perfectly in line with your run-of-the-mill sociopath.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Jan 22, 2013)

> "Fears always springs from ignorance." - Ralph Waldo Emerson



No they fucking don't.


----------



## Let'sFightingLove (Jan 22, 2013)

Bryan Paulsen said:


> Only in the event you initiate aggression against me will I respond in kind.



are you going to shoot mael?


----------



## Mael (Jan 22, 2013)

Bryan Paulsen said:


> Out of the Utilitarian's mouth and to God's ears. Let the chips fall where they may.
> 
> "Fears always springs from ignorance." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
> 
> ...



Right, and the whole I'm going to kill anyone approaching to take my unnecessarily needed assault weapons, since I'm obviously going to be using assault weapons as defense lol the irony.

Oh wait that's a PSYCHOPATH.

Shut up and get out.  Go benchpress or something.  It's like your brain decided not to be a brain and decided to be a muscle without cognition.


----------



## Bryan Paulsen (Jan 22, 2013)

Bill the Troll said:


> AR-15 vs. B-1 Lancer. Who will win. More at 11.



Drone with a Hellfire missile is more likely, these days. Come on, you worship the military, you should know better.

As far as Americans are concerned, a "gun-rights" activist is only as good as an Afghani child in terms of value, might as well kill them off in the same way, right?


----------



## Ippy (Jan 22, 2013)

Bryan Paulsen said:


> Relativism does not form the basis of an intellectual argument _vis a vis_ the abrogation of rights. Any "need of the people" that deny the rights of individuals stems from an _appeal to popularity_, and is rightly rejected due to the implicit relativism.
> 
> Laws are supposed to be reactionary, dedicated to the consequences of transgressing the rights of others. Laws that do not fall under this category are unjust laws.
> 
> ...


_Are you claiming to be a religious man?

1. It's fitting that you prefer the Old Testament.  Oh so fitting.

2. You are being a hypocrite.  You pick and choose what Commandments you wish to follow, based on your own motives.

Nowhere in the bible does it say "Thou shall not allow liberals to take thine guns.", but I do believe there is a part that says "Thou shall not kill.".



Bryan Paulsen said:



			Let's be perfectly clear - there is no implication, this is a concrete statement.

The initiation of aggression against my person forfeits the rights of the aggressor, rendering all responses to said aggression inherently ethical, that is the logical basis of self-defense. If you subvert my right of self-defense, which requires an act of aggression, your right to life is forfeit.
		
Click to expand...

But if laws are enacted that outlaw the possession of firearms (and let's be real here, that's just not going to happen in the US) or at least rifles, that means that anyone that confiscates your weapons will be acting within the law... and you trying to kill them for confiscation is you being unlawful.

That makes YOU the aggressor.  That means YOUR life is forfeit.

Also, are you aware that there are more ways to defend yourself, against imaginary threats, than firearms?  Knives?  Swords?  Martial arts?_


----------



## Megaharrison (Jan 22, 2013)

Bryan Paulsen said:


> Drone with a Hellfire missile is more likely, these days. Come on, you worship the military, you should know better.



Well I was just going for much as overkill as possible. 

But if we're talking realism, IRL you'd just be gunned down by Police SWAT and it'd never even make it to the National Guard phase.

Armed rebellion/revolution is not something that's going to be necessary in the US or Western countries in general. We get these stupid "police state" scenarios from both the left and right, it's not going to happen. In Israel, we look over our borders and see what real tyranny is. You're not in danger of experiencing it. 

You also don't shoot cops and national guard because they're enforcing gun legislation in a democratic congressional institution. You just don't do that. People who do so need to be exterminated with extreme prejudice.


----------



## Blue (Jan 22, 2013)

Elim Rawne said:


> No they fucking don't.



They really don't. The most mortifying fears spring from knowledge. "Mad Genius" isn't just a trope. The burden of truth is too much for many to bear, and the more brilliant the bearer, the heavier it weighs.


----------



## Mael (Jan 22, 2013)

Bryan Paulsen said:


> Drone with a Hellfire missile is more likely, these days. Come on, you worship the military, you should know better.
> 
> As far as Americans are concerned, a "gun-rights" activist is only as good as an Afghani child in terms of value, might as well kill them off in the same way, right?



Absolutely.  We could use a culling of lesser intelligent beings.


----------



## Bryan Paulsen (Jan 22, 2013)

Elim Rawne said:


> No they fucking don't.



It was hyperbole. Absolutist terms, ie: "always", don't work well, but the quote worked for his fear of me.



Let'sFightingLove said:


> are you going to shoot mael?



If he came to steal ("confiscate") my property - yes. Otherwise, no.



Mael said:


> Right, and the whole I'm going to kill anyone approaching to take my unnecessarily needed assault weapons, since I'm obviously going to be using assault weapons as defense lol the irony.
> 
> Oh wait that's a PSYCHOPATH.
> 
> Shut up and get out.  Go benchpress or something.  It's like your brain decided not to be a brain and decided to be a muscle without cognition.



Oh look, Mael slides in a relativistic term "unnecessarily needed" and expects anyone interested in formal logic to be interested. Boring, but what I would expect out of his overly emotional responses to this point.

It's clear the fact I lift weights bothers you, and is an indictment of your (lack of) character. Run along, kid.


----------



## Ippy (Jan 22, 2013)

Fear springs from threat.

It's not inherently ignorance or knowledge.


----------



## Mael (Jan 22, 2013)

Bill the Troll said:


> Well I was just going for much as overkill as possible.
> 
> But if we're talking realism, IRL you'd just be gunned down by Police SWAT and it'd never even make it to the National Guard phase.



But the Constitution is his impenetrable armor. 



			
				Mr. Gunjob said:
			
		

> Oh look, Mael slides in a relativistic term "unnecessarily needed" and expects anyone interested in formal logic to be interested. Boring, but what I would expect out of his overly emotional responses to this point.
> 
> And stop staring at my avatar, man. It's clear the fact I lift weights bothers you. Run along, kid.



You showing this off shows me you're a gym jockey and don't hold a more respectable position in society.

Actually I have a lot of people joining my formal logic that assault weapons are absolutely unnecessary for defense of home as compared to bolt-action rifles, pistols, and the ever-trusty shotgun.  Nobody needs a semi-automatic 7.62mm rifle to defend from a burglar.  Fuck off from your own relativism.

You need to defend how you're not being a psychopath right now.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Jan 22, 2013)

> It was hyperbole. Absolutist terms, ie: "always", don't work well, but the quote worked for his fear of me.



Oh, so you completely disregarded what the quote means, but you still used it. Using quotes must be mandatory if you're that pretentious, I guess.


----------



## Blue (Jan 22, 2013)

MMAthematician said:


> Fear springs from threat.
> 
> It's not inherently ignorance or knowledge.



Really? And what threat are monsters under a bed to a 5 year old?


----------



## Mael (Jan 22, 2013)

Elim Rawne said:


> Oh, so you completely disregarded what the quote means, but you still used it. Using quotes must be mandatory if you're that pretentious, I guess.



It's not even pretentious...it's psychopathic.


----------



## Mael (Jan 22, 2013)

Stay classy, media.


----------



## Bryan Paulsen (Jan 22, 2013)

MMAthematician said:


> Are you claiming to be a religious man?
> 
> 1. It's fitting that you prefer the Old Testament.  Oh so fitting.
> 
> 2. You are being a hypocrite.  You pick and choose what Commandments you wish to follow, based on your own motives.



Referring to the New Testament as "laughable" would typically lead someone to believe I'm an atheist, which is precisely what I am. Well, agnostic atheist if we're being overly technical and also answering the epistemological question.

I used the quote because I was familiar with the text, and it was a fancy way of pointing out that Mael is a hypocrite.



> But if laws are enacted that outlaw the possession of firearms (and let's be real here, that's just not going to happen in the US) or at least rifles, that means that anyone that confiscates your weapons will be acting within the law... and you trying to kill them for confiscation is you being unlawful.
> 
> That makes YOU the aggressor.  That means YOUR life is forfeit.



Rights pre-empt the law. The history of agents of the State prosecuting unjust law extends well into ancient history. It is the duty of the individual to uphold rights and to seek the elimination of unjust laws. This country fought a Civil War heavily tied into unjust laws (ie: slavery).



> Also, are you aware that there are more ways to defend yourself, against imaginary threats, than firearms?  Knives?  Swords?  Martial arts?



Yep. It just so happens some methods are more efficient than others.



Bill the Troll said:


> Well I was just going for much as overkill as possible.
> 
> But if we're talking realism, IRL you'd just be gunned down by Police SWAT and it'd never even make it to the National Guard phase.



Obviously.



> Armed rebellion/revolution is not something that's going to be necessary in the US or Western countries in general. We get these stupid "police state" scenarios from both the left and right, it's not going to happen. In Israel, we look over our borders and see what real tyranny is. You're not in danger of experiencing it.



The PATRIOT Act, NDAA, 30,000 drones soon to be over American skies. The worries about a police state are hardly "stupid".

Israel is "lucky enough" to have an existential threat that distracts them. In the USA the _potential_ of an existential threat is used to justify infringement on civil liberties. The difference is significant.



> You also don't shoot cops and national guard because they're enforcing gun legislation in a democratic congressional institution. You just don't do that. People who do so need to be exterminated with extreme prejudice.



If they're enforcing anything that abrogates the rights of individuals, then it is the responsibility of the individual to uphold those rights.

"Gun legislation" is nebulous. Background checks that verify individuals still retain their civil rights, or in other words are not felons, are not going to draw the sort of response you are referring to.

Confiscation, which is the subject this is really about, is a different matter entirely.



Mael said:


> Absolutely.  We could use a culling of lesser intelligent beings.



Irony.


----------



## Ippy (Jan 22, 2013)

Blue said:


> Really? And what threat are monsters under a bed to a 5 year old?


Fear doesn't necessarily mean hiding in the closet.  It's perceiving a threat and acting accordingly.

You can perceive a threat from something both real and imaginary.  You can feel threatened from being the dark (harder to see surroundings, thus harder to see any potential threats, thus fear from _ignorance_), to being in close proximity to a dangerous person (you know that person exhibits behaviors that are a physical threat to your person, that person is a position to cause you physical harm, thus fear from _knowledge_).


----------



## Blue (Jan 22, 2013)

Hm. Well, that's not a bad point.

It is possible to fear things which pose no direct threat, however. For instance, a person fearing their sports team losing, or a person fearing an escalation of violence in Syria.

Or a person fearing gun fanatics committing SWAT-assisted suicide.


----------



## Bryan Paulsen (Jan 22, 2013)

MMAthematician said:


> Fear springs from threat.
> 
> It's not inherently ignorance or knowledge.



Fear springs from _perceived_ threat, rational or irrational.



Mael said:


> But the Constitution is his impenetrable armor.



Liberalism came before the Constitution. The Constitution, as it is, is a means to an end used to secure natural rights, hence _The Bill of Rights_.



> You showing this off shows me you're a gym jockey and don't hold a more respectable position in society.



Okay. Lifting weights equals lack of respect. Got it. I'll be sure to pass it on to the S&C community.



> Actually I have a lot of people joining my formal logic that assault weapons are absolutely unnecessary for defense of home as compared to bolt-action rifles, pistols, and the ever-trusty shotgun.  Nobody needs a semi-automatic 7.62mm rifle to defend from a burglar.  Fuck off from your own relativism.
> 
> You need to defend how you're not being a psychopath right now.



No student of formal logic would take the word "unnecessary" seriously. It's implicit relativism (what is "necessary" is subjective) is enough to disqualify it. This, sadly, is probably lost on you.



Elim Rawne said:


> Oh, so you completely disregarded what the quote means, but you still used it. Using quotes must be mandatory if you're that pretentious, I guess.



The quote _is_ hyperbole. Ralph Waldo Emerson, the originator of said quote, is famous for his hyperbole, ie: "the shot heard 'round the world" was also his quote. Hyperbole exaggerates a point, and is not representative of a formal argument.

(Why do I even have to explain the obvious?)


----------



## LouDAgreat (Jan 22, 2013)

Bryan Paulson said:
			
		

> Rights pre-empt the law. The history of agents of the State prosecuting unjust law extends well into ancient history. It is the duty of the individual to uphold rights and to seek the elimination of unjust laws. This country fought a Civil War heavily tied into unjust laws (ie: slavery).



There is no natural right to own assault weapons. The existence and possession of such weapons is whats unjust.


----------



## Mael (Jan 22, 2013)

You have to explain because you twist your words around just to invoke your own awful brand of Karl Rove logic, just what you and Lyndon LaRouche want to hear.  Really, you're as bonkers as they come with this and just about any other political position.  Where are we going to get 30K drones all around America?  Wait, you're betting they'll be equipped with Hellfires too BECAUSE OH NOEZ POLICE STATE.

Really, the only obvious embarrassment is you whereas the rest of us respect limitations.  Assault weapons, weapons meant for armed forces for ASSAULT and mass force engagement at long ranges, are the antithesis of home defense weapons in practicality.  

I'm sure the man who created the Sturmgewehr 44 specifically intended it for home defense.  Oh wait, Hugo Schmeisser didn't.  HE MEANT IT FOR THE WEHRMACHT, NOT HOME DEFENSE.  Neither did Louis Stange of the famed Fallschirmj?gergewehr 42.

You fail basic fucking military history.

And yes there is an issue with spending too much time at the gym.  It makes you look like a douche without a job.


----------



## Bryan Paulsen (Jan 22, 2013)

LouDAgreat said:


> There is no natural right to own assault weapons. The existence and possession of such weapons is whats unjust.



There is a natural right to self-defense. The question at that point is simply whether assault rifles can be used in self-defense without aggressing against the rights of others.

Now, let's assume that "existence and possession of such weapons is unjust". Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that I accept this as true... Are you prepared to argue that the State should be forbidden ownership of those weapons?


----------



## Hand Banana (Jan 22, 2013)

Mael said:


> And yes there is an issue with spending too much time at the gym.  It makes you look like a douche without a job.


----------



## Roman (Jan 22, 2013)

Oh look. The Hulk wannabe is back.



Bryan Paulsen said:


> We know exactly what you're trying to do, and that's why we're pointing out the emphasis on rifles is _asinine_. The problem with gun violence lies in _handguns_, but gun-control advocates are taking their incrementalist approach, that we are already completely aware of, in order to enhance the monopoly on force so that when the time comes to confiscate firearms the people will have even less means of resistance. You want to forcefully control society, and do it with as little bloodshed as possible.



You know nothing, Bryan Paulsen. You keep telling me that banning rifles is meaningless and that the real problem is handguns. This despite the fact the very post of mine you quoted had me say the exact same thing, although our solutions differ. You want to keep the guns thinking the fact there's so much murder in the US is the reason guns need to be treated as sacred tools, whereas I say things would be better without them. Now normally, we'd be at an impasse. Except your own evidence shows gun violence contributes to 70% of all homicide in your country while on the other hand, countries like the UK enjoy not just far less gun murders, but far less murders overall. I have evidence to support gun bans can and will work to stop people from dying while you will simply sit by as thousands of people die each year because of the sanctity of your second amendment. Ridiculous doesn't even begin to describe you as a person.



Bryan Paulsen said:


> Pro-natural rights advocates, like myself, *have no interest in forfeiting our property, or our rights, to suit your needs, and will resist.*
> 
> We have no interest in negotiating with people that fully intend to abrogate our rights. If you want to force people to live in the society you want, then you had better be prepared to kill me for it. Because the society you envision will require exactly that.
> 
> _Molon Labe_.



As I said to you before: There is nothing natural in the right to kill people. You will react to someone stealing your stuff with a shootout. I find it extreme to respond to burglary with murder. Additionally, to react to the fear of losing your second amendment rights by killing people only serves to prove the need to ban firearms. Weapons designed purely for death shouldn't be left in the hands of people eager to kill for their irrational fear of a dystopia.



Velocity said:


> I worked out that, even if the two countries had the same population (by reducing the American population to one fifth of its current size), the United Kingdom still has only 2.44% the number of gun related deaths as those in the United States (something like 158 compared to 6'467). "A lot less" wouldn't even begin to cover it.



Indeed. I was trying to be generous for our American gun-lovers in this forum


----------



## Ippy (Jan 22, 2013)

Bryan Paulsen said:


> Fear springs from _perceived_ threat, rational or irrational.


Way ahead of you.



Bryan Paulsen said:


> Okay. Lifting weights equals lack of respect. Got it. I'll be sure to pass it on to the S&C community.


I actually disagree with the direction Mael took, as well.

I am a gym rat myself (and I hold TWO professional job titles), and I see it as the exact opposite.  How is it idiotic to want to increase my cardiovascular health, become physically stronger, and increase my physical attractiveness?

Where is the disadvantage?



Bryan Paulsen said:


> Referring to the New Testament as "laughable" would typically lead someone to believe I'm an atheist, which is precisely what I am. Well, agnostic atheist if we're being overly technical and also answering the epistemological question.
> 
> I used the quote because I was familiar with the text, and it was a fancy way of pointing out that Mael is a hypocrite.


My mistake then.



Bryan Paulsen said:


> Rights pre-empt the law. The history of agents of the State prosecuting unjust law extends well into ancient history. It is the duty of the individual to uphold rights and to seek the elimination of unjust laws. This country fought a Civil War heavily tied into unjust laws (ie: slavery).


"unjust laws"?

How is it unjust to want to ban ASSAULT weapons?  They serve no other purpose than for what they've been used for (outside of the typical warzone), in traditionally non-violent places, _assaulting _innocent and unarmed individuals.



Bryan Paulsen said:


> If they're enforcing anything that abrogates the rights of individuals, then it is the responsibility of the individual to uphold those rights.


But who gets to arbitrarily decide which rights need to get upheld?

Who gets to arbitrarily decide which individuals must forfeit their right to live (protected by LAW) based on the perceived threats by another individual?

If these arbitrary rights also impede on the ability for individuals in a country to live long and healthy lives, and it becomes LAW that these rights are no longer rights, then you are upholding unjust and unlawful beliefs.


----------



## LouDAgreat (Jan 22, 2013)

Bryan Paulson said:
			
		

> There is a natural right to self-defense. The question at that point is simply whether assault rifles can be used in self-defense without aggressing against the rights of others.



No, it's a question of whether assault weapons, originally constructed for killing as many people as people with as little effort as possible, is even appropriate for self defense. Which it is not. 



			
				Bryan Paulson said:
			
		

> Now, let's assume that "existence and possession of such weapons is unjust". Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that I accept this as true... Are you prepared to argue that the State should be forbidden ownership of those weapons?



No, the State must have the exclusive right to own those weapons.


----------



## Ippy (Jan 22, 2013)

Bryan Paulsen said:


> There is a natural right to self-defense. The question at that point is simply whether assault rifles can be used in self-defense without aggressing against the rights of others.
> 
> Now, let's assume that "existence and possession of such weapons is unjust". Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that I accept this as true... Are you prepared to argue that the State should be forbidden ownership of those weapons?


No, the State should be able to own those weapons, because then they would only be used for the purpose of upholding the law, and not for mass killing innocent and non-violent civilians.

The idea is to make it HARDER for crazies to do that.  

If a crazed assailant is forced to start killing people with a sword, it gives the victims a greater chance for survival and makes it easier for law enforcement to take down the attacker.

Win-win, as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Bryan Paulsen (Jan 22, 2013)

Mael said:


> You have to explain because you twist your words around just to invoke your own awful brand of Karl Rove logic, just what you and Lyndon LaRouche want to hear.  Really, you're as bonkers as they come with this and just about any other political position.  Where are we going to get 30K drones all around America?  Wait, you're betting they'll be equipped with Hellfires too BECAUSE OH NOEZ POLICE STATE.





Admittedly 30,000 is the upper limit. They won't be armed, but it's not like arming them in the future is a very trivial task once you've established that the invasion of privacy isn't a big deal.

"If you're not doing anything wrong, why does it matter if they watch you?" <--- Current neo-conservative logic.

"If you're not doing anything wrong, why does it matter if they're armed?" <--- Possible neo-conservative logic.



> Really, the only obvious embarrassment is you whereas the rest of us respect limitations.  Assault weapons, weapons meant for armed forces for ASSAULT and mass force engagement at long ranges, are the antithesis of home defense weapons in practicality.



I've argued on here, repeatedly, what the limitations _are_. The limitations are weapons which, by nature of their ballistics or a lack of personal control, would necessarily subvert the rights of others.

Assault rifles do not share the limitations of land mines, grenades, missiles, bombs, nukes, biological, or chemical weapons in this regard.

Perceived practicality is, again, relativistic.



> I'm sure the man who created the Sturmgewehr 44 specifically intended it for home defense.  Oh wait, Hugo Schmeisser didn't.  HE MEANT IT FOR THE WEHRMACHT, NOT HOME DEFENSE.  Neither did Louis Stange of the famed Fallschirmj?gergewehr 42.
> 
> You fail basic fucking military history.



Every weapon used in warfare, since the dawn of time, was done so with militaristic intentions in mind.

Defensive and offensive.



> And yes there is an issue with spending too much time at the gym.  It makes you look like a douche without a job.



It's good to know an hour a day qualifies as "too much time at the gym". Where oh where does the other 23 hours of the day go?

Is that where your intellect vastly exceeded mine? You used that extra hour each day to study? If so, then consider me impressed. Clearly, with all of that time you've avoided spending working out you must be preparing to submit your thesis on something that will revolutionize mankind.


----------



## Ippy (Jan 22, 2013)

Seriously, I spend a _minimum _2 hours a day at the gym (today I was there from 8AM-1PM), I hold two professional job titles, and I happen to be on the anti-gun side of the argument.  Obviously, there is no positive or negative correlation between muscles and intellect, at least in the context of this argument.

Stop that route. It's ad hominem and asinine.


----------



## Bryan Paulsen (Jan 22, 2013)

Freedan said:


> Oh look. The Hulk wannabe is back.



Oh look. Another person that is endlessly fascinated with the fact I lift weights.



> You know nothing, Bryan Paulsen. You keep telling me that banning rifles is meaningless and that the real problem is handguns. This despite the fact the very post of mine you quoted had me say the exact same thing, although our solutions differ. You want to keep the guns thinking the fact there's so much murder in the US is the reason guns need to be treated as sacred tools, whereas I say things would be better without them. Now normally, we'd be at an impasse. Except your own evidence shows gun violence contributes to 70% of all homicide in your country while on the other hand, countries like the UK enjoy not just far less gun murders, but far less murders overall. I have evidence to support gun bans can and will work to stop people from dying while you will simply sit by as thousands of people die each year because of the sanctity of your second amendment. Ridiculous doesn't even begin to describe you as a person.



Unlike you, I have no desire to punish innocent individuals for the actions of others. You intend to forfeit the property of innocent individuals, that have committed no crime, in order to act as a prophylactic against an individual that may eventually commit a crime with a given tool.

I will not endorse the forfeiture of the rights of others for a hypothetical gain. It is the same logic that got us the PATRIOT Act and NDAA.



> As I said to you before: There is nothing natural in the right to kill people. You will react to someone stealing your stuff with a shootout. I find it extreme to respond to burglary with murder. Additionally, to react to the fear of losing your second amendment rights by killing people only serves to prove the need to ban firearms. Weapons designed purely for death shouldn't be left in the hands of people eager to kill for their irrational fear of a dystopia.



Firstly, there is no "right" to kill people without provocation. Aggression forms the basis in discerning ethical/unethical conduct. Killing someone in self-defense is ethical.

I have no intention of shooting people without them trying to steal from me. It's really rather simple - don't want to get shot? Don't steal my property.



MMAthematician said:


> "unjust laws"?
> 
> How is it unjust to want to ban ASSAULT weapons?  They serve no other purpose than for what they've been used for (outside of the typical warzone), in traditionally non-violent places, _assaulting _innocent and unarmed individuals.



Any law that would give special rights to the State denied to the _proletariat_ is unjust, because _equal application of the law becomes arbitrary application of the law_. This is a criticism of gun-control advocates that insist the military/police need them, but the average citizen does not.



> But who gets to arbitrarily decide which rights need to get upheld?



Natural rights are inalienable.



> Who gets to arbitrarily decide which individuals must forfeit their right to live (protected by LAW) based on the perceived threats by another individual?



Given the law defends self-defense, this is why confiscation isn't on the table as of yet. For the most part this discussion is entirely hypothetical for that reason alone. People are forgetting all of this began with _Freedan_ insisting the _proletariat_ shouldn't be allowed to own guns.



> If these arbitrary rights also impede on the ability for individuals in a country to live long and healthy lives, and it becomes LAW that these rights are no longer rights, then you are upholding unjust and unlawful beliefs.



Natural rights aren't arbitrary.

The law does not determine what is just and unjust, only what is lawful and unlawful. Such a proposition that the law determines what is just effectively condones any and all State abuse of human rights since time immemorial. It is, therefore, wholly rejected as an ethical model.


----------



## Mael (Jan 22, 2013)

MMAthematician said:


> Seriously, I spend a _minimum _2 hours a day at the gym (today I was there from 8AM-1PM), I hold two professional job titles, and I happen to be on the anti-gun side of the argument.  Obviously, there is no positive or negative correlation between muscles and intellect, at least in the context of this argument.
> 
> Stop that route. It's ad hominem and asinine.



Suffice to say only you have acted as some form of credible counterpoint.  I go to the gym as well as I have to stay fit for the Armed Forces, but the inane crap he spouts shows classic meathead.  It is AH, you're right, but I guess my experiences with people like him have been all but negative.  To answer Bryan...I spend my extra time going to law school, to actually understand logic in law rather than blabber about it like it's an infallible ideal like Paulsen proclaims.

Aside from that...his Molon Labe stuff screams classic pseudointellectual Hulk wannabe.


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Jan 22, 2013)

Anyhow the Lone Star College shooting thing turned out to be a fight that escalated into a shooting.  Not really the sort of thing that serves an assault weapons ban narrative.  You may now return to your regularly scheduled derp, or you can walk the path of utmost Serenity and go watch _Friendship is Magic._
_
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. -Ben Franklin_


----------



## Megaharrison (Jan 22, 2013)

Bryan Paulsen said:


> Admittedly 30,000 is the upper limit. They won't be armed, but it's not like arming them in the future is a very trivial task once you've established that the invasion of privacy isn't a big deal.



This claim interested me so I've already looked into this and the models being discussed are the Arcturus T-15 series. Those are way too small to be armed and are more or less remote controlled toy planes with a camera.



30,000 UCAV's would require large UAV's each in the millions of dollars. Far too expensive for Homeland Security. The only UAV's that can be armed operated by U.S. law enforcement are their Israeli Hermes-450's which are used in small numbers by the Border Patrol and I doubt they've bothered to upgrade them to do that.

And people shut up with the gym thing it's not relevant.


----------



## LouDAgreat (Jan 22, 2013)

The Space Cowboy said:


> Anyhow the Lone Star College shooting thing turned out to be a fight that escalated into a shooting.  Not really the sort of thing that serves an assault weapons ban narrative.  You may now return to your regularly scheduled derp, or you can walk the path of utmost Serenity and go watch _Friendship is Magic._
> _
> Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. -Ben Franklin_



Good thing the guns they carried weren't assault weapons. 

And I'd like to know what Benjamin Franklin thinks about Assault weapons being in possession by civilians...oh wait, he wasn't alive to see those weapons, so his quote is irrelevant.


----------



## Mael (Jan 22, 2013)

Sweet...quote night for shit dead people didn't see coming.


----------



## Bryan Paulsen (Jan 22, 2013)

LouDAgreat said:


> No, it's a question of whether assault weapons, originally constructed for killing as many people as people with as little effort as possible, is even appropriate for self defense. Which it is not.



Your logic also rules out combat knives, which is absurd. _Reductio ad absurdum_ will reduce your position to irrelevancy, I hope you realize.

What is the standard you use to determine what is "appropriate" for self-defense?

Does this standard satisfy the criteria that self-defense doesn't always occur against singular attackers?



> No, the State must have the exclusive right to own those weapons.



From where do you derive the exclusive privilege of the _bourgeoisie_ to own weapons, but deny the _proletariat_?



MMAthematician said:


> No, the State should be able to own those weapons, because then they would only be used for the purpose of upholding the law, and not for mass killing innocent and non-violent civilians.



From where do you derive the notion that the State will only use them to uphold the law?

From where do you derive the notion that the law created by a State with a monopoly on force is necessarily just?



> The idea is to make it HARDER for crazies to do that.



PATRIOT Act and NDAA logic, redux. If you want to go down that road, then Totalitarianism would make you the safest. 

Arbitrary interpretations of rights are not in the self-interest of anyone but those with their hands on the levers of power.



> If a crazed assailant is forced to start killing people with a sword, it gives the victims a greater chance for survival and makes it easier for law enforcement to take down the attacker.
> 
> Win-win, as far as I'm concerned.



Your argument boils down to a lack of concern for the individual actually attacked, and a willingness to weaken their means of self-defense against attackers.

I particularly have in mind women and the elderly on this one.


----------



## LouDAgreat (Jan 22, 2013)

Bryan Paulson said:
			
		

> Your logic also rules out combat knives, which is absurd. Reductio ad absurdum will reduce your position to irrelevancy, I hope you realize.



It takes a lot more effort to kill a group of people with a combat knife than it does with an assault weapon. That's a pretty obvious fucking thing to see. 



> What is the standard you use to determine what is "appropriate" for self-defense?



I've told you before, single shot handguns/ rifles. Unloading 30 rounds per minute from an assault rifle on one target is overkill. The power and impact each round has on the human body is overkill. 



> Does this standard satisfy the criteria that self-defense doesn't always occur against singular attackers?



Legal limit of 1 extra round clip for pistols. Satisfied?



> From where do you derive the exclusive privilege of the bourgeoisie to own weapons, but deny the proletariat?



Huh? 

THE MILITARY...people of bourgeois and proletariat or whatever fuck fancy word you got for people of class, owns those guns. They serve to protect and defend the country from foreign and domestic foes, not to kill them and stomp on them like Assad would.


----------



## Mael (Jan 22, 2013)

I love how Bryan is saying he's looking out for the innocent and the elderly, the latter of whom I'd be amazed could accurately fire an AK-47 variant or AR-15.

It's absolute paranoia.  He thinks that the government already has death squads on the move waiting to tap, tag, and bag anyone "out of line."  Mega was also kind enough to destroy his UAV argument when shit...it wasn't even really necessary.

Oh wait don't use necessary...that's relativism and relativism is evil with a blind idealist like him.


----------



## TSC (Jan 22, 2013)

Bryan Paulsen said:


> If he came to steal ("confiscate") my property - yes. Otherwise, no.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I dunno if you know or not, but Mael is in the Military Arms Force. I'm pretty sure he lift weights too and I'm pretty sure if you two got engage in a fight, he'd win.


----------



## Blue (Jan 22, 2013)

Mael said:


> Suffice to say only you have acted as some form of credible counterpoint.  I go to the gym as well as I have to stay fit for the Armed Forces, but the inane crap he spouts shows classic meathead.  It is AH, you're right, but I guess my experiences with people like him have been all but negative.


He may be crazy, and more than a little pretentious with his esoteric verbosity, but his vocabulary makes you look like a speak & spell book. I don't think you're impressing the studio audience with your muscle envy routine.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 22, 2013)

The Space Cowboy said:


> Anyhow the Lone Star College shooting thing turned out to be a fight that escalated into a shooting.  Not really the sort of thing that serves an assault weapons ban narrative.  You may now return to your regularly scheduled derp, or you can walk the path of utmost Serenity and go watch _Friendship is Magic._
> _
> Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. -Ben Franklin_



Let's legalize drones and missiles too then.


----------



## Bryan Paulsen (Jan 22, 2013)

Mael said:


> Suffice to say only you have acted as some form of credible counterpoint.  I go to the gym as well as I have to stay fit for the Armed Forces, but the inane crap he spouts shows classic meathead.  It is AH, you're right, but I guess my experiences with people like him have been all but negative.  To answer Bryan...I spend my extra time going to law school, to actually understand logic in law rather than blabber about it like it's an infallible ideal like Paulsen proclaims.
> 
> Aside from that...his Molon Labe stuff screams classic pseudointellectual Hulk wannabe.



You're in the military? Now your overly emotional responses and general fear of, and disdain for, civilians makes sense. You should seriously consider becoming a politician when you get out.

An understanding of logic won't come from law school, I hate to break it to you. The law represents one potential application of logic; nothing more, nothing less.



Bill the Troll said:


> This claim interested me so I've already looked into this and the models being discussed are the Arcturus T-15 series. Those are way too small to be armed and are more or less remote controlled toy planes with a camera.
> 
> 
> 
> 30,000 UCAV's would require large UAV's each in the millions of dollars. Far too expensive for Homeland Security. The only UAV's that can be armed operated by U.S. law enforcement are their Israeli Hermes-450's which are used in small numbers by the Border Patrol and I doubt they've bothered to upgrade them to do that.



It doesn't have to hit 30,000 for it to be a civil rights issue. Establishing the precedent that _carte blanche_ domestic drone surveillance in the name of "public safety" is more than enough to eventually consider arming them for the same reason.

And funding is not a problem for a country that runs the deficits that we do.


----------



## LouDAgreat (Jan 22, 2013)

> *New Mexico teen Nehemiah Griego unleashed night of terror against family after having 'homicidal and suicidal thoughts'*: report
> 
> The New Mexico teen accused of fatally shooting his family unleashed a night of terror — at one point holding up his lifeless mother's head to convince his younger brother she was dead.
> 
> ...


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 22, 2013)

Look, I just need these M16s to feel safe from the assault on freedom and Christianity that Barrack HUSSEIN Obama has waged on our wholesome American society. With the minorities set to take over this country, I need a good stockpile for the upcoming race war. It's only for defense.


----------



## TSC (Jan 22, 2013)

Blue said:


> He may be crazy, and more than a little pretentious with his esoteric verbosity, but his vocabulary makes you look like a speak & spell book. I don't think you're impressing the studio audience with your muscle envy routine.



I don't think Mael envy his muscles physique but more so mocking the absurdity of that image it mainly, if that avatar of his really is him, because of how bizarre that picture look. That back is very wide and spread out and he seems to be posing in a position that make him seems stiff and can't move his arms and body or he look constipated in there.


----------



## Mael (Jan 22, 2013)

Ding, ding...TSC gets the prize.  Pity you're rep sealed. 



Blue said:


> He may be crazy, and more than a little pretentious with his esoteric verbosity, but his vocabulary makes you look like a speak & spell book. I don't think you're impressing the studio audience with your muscle envy routine.



All the erudite words in the world amount to jack and shit if you can't produce thought process via words that hold some modicum of logic, consideration, and mental stability.

So what was your argument again?


----------



## LouDAgreat (Jan 22, 2013)

Bryan Paulson said:
			
		

> You're in the military? Now your overly emotional responses and general fear of, and disdain for, civilians makes sense. You should seriously consider becoming a politician when you get out.



Service to the country now equates to fear and disdain of civilians. More nonsense coming from you.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 22, 2013)

He called a Libertarian a socialist...an authoritarian one at that!


----------



## Mael (Jan 22, 2013)

Bryan Paulsen said:


> You're in the military? Now your overly emotional responses and general fear of, and disdain for, civilians makes sense. You should seriously consider becoming a politician when you get out.
> 
> An understanding of logic won't come from law school, I hate to break it to you. The law represents one potential application of logic; nothing more, nothing less.



Presumptuous are we?  This already confirms your paranoia about ANY and all authority figures.  Nope...you want anarchy.  A man is his own boss and damned be the irresponsibility behind it all.  You are a pathetic human being.

See this is the moment where you've officially lost the game.  Actually you'd be amazed was a Juris Doctorate can get you.  In your case, it'd get you a fucking clue.



> It doesn't have to hit 30,000 for it to be a civil rights issue. Establishing the precedent that _carte blanche_ domestic drone surveillance in the name of "public safety" is more than enough to eventually consider arming them for the same reason.
> 
> And funding is not a problem for a country that runs the deficits that we do.



No but your idiotic presumption was that it wouldn't be long until they were armed and ready to strike Americans.  Don't backtrack your shit if you want to be so erudite spitting out written diarrhea.


----------



## Bryan Paulsen (Jan 22, 2013)

LouDAgreat said:


> It takes a lot more effort to kill a group of people with a combat knife than it does with an assault weapon. That's a pretty obvious fucking thing to see.



Look at those goalposts move! First it was "designed to kill a lot of people" and now the emphasis is just on effort.

I'm pretty sure if a Navy SEAL ever went insane he'd have no issue at all dispatching plenty of people, with just a hunting knife, with little effort.

Let's ban SEALs!

... or let's just not use arbitrary standards. I like that one better.



> I've told you before, single shot handguns/ rifles. Unloading 30 rounds per minute from an assault rifle on one target is overkill. The power and impact each round has on the human body is overkill.



If you're attacked by 2 people, then you're screwed? Score one for Lou's self-defense system.

The first gun I ever owned was a single-shot .22 Rifle given to me for my 11th birthday. For self-defense it most definitely was not well suited. At that point you're best off firing once, and using it as a blunt object.



> Legal limit of 1 extra round clip for pistols. Satisfied?



Where do you derive this limit? Why do these goalposts move so often?



> THE MILITARY...people of bourgeois and proletariat or whatever fuck fancy word you got for people of class, owns those guns. They serve to protect and defend the country from foreign and domestic foes, not to kill them and stomp on them like Assad would.



Eh, no, we don't own those guns in anything more than a very abstract sense (so abstract that one of the leading arguments _for_ democratic institutions is the elimination of a standing army). Since you like Assad, did his people own the weapons used to kill them?

Oh, but we're special, because we're the USA. How silly of me to forget. We are an untainted force of righteousness.



Mael said:


> I love how Bryan is saying he's looking out for the innocent and the elderly, the latter of whom I'd be amazed could accurately fire an AK-47 variant or AR-15.
> 
> It's absolute paranoia.  He thinks that the government already has death squads on the move waiting to tap, tag, and bag anyone "out of line."  Mega was also kind enough to destroy his UAV argument when shit...it wasn't even really necessary.
> 
> Oh wait don't use necessary...that's relativism and relativism is evil with a blind idealist like him.



The elderly are more than able to choose what suits their physical abilities best.

There's no paranoia, either. As things are now things are well and fine. My supposed "craziness" will only emerge in the event _something actually happens_.

Fear me some more Mael. Fear the "crazy, stupid, dumb, meathead, idealistic, libertarian" citizen.



TSC said:


> I dunno if you know or not, but Mael is in the Military Arms Force. I'm pretty sure he lift weights too and I'm pretty sure if you two got engage in a fight, he'd win.



And not a single fuck was given this day. Until the day that comes that he tries to pick a fight with me in person, I don't care who he is or what he can do.

I respond to aggression. I do not initiate it.


----------



## Megaharrison (Jan 22, 2013)

See that's where we differ. I initiate aggression.


----------



## Bryan Paulsen (Jan 22, 2013)

LouDaGreat said:
			
		

> Service to the country now equates to fear and disdain of civilians. More nonsense coming from you.



Not quite. There are individuals that respect the civilians without fearing them.

On the other hand, there are service members, like Mael, that profess fear and disdain for civilians like myself.

It's not all that unusual. Now run along, since you clearly missed when he professed his fear of people like me.



Mael said:


> Presumptuous are we?  This already confirms your paranoia about ANY and all authority figures.  Nope...you want anarchy.  A man is his own boss and damned be the irresponsibility behind it all.  You are a pathetic human being.



Bzzt. Wrong.

Authority is all well and fine, and wholly organic in human anthropology. People will, for various reasons, submit themselves to an authority of their own will.

I'll pass on authority disconnected from my person that asserts primacy over my person without my assent.

Aside from that, skepticism should be reserved for authority figures, in general.



> See this is the moment where you've officially lost the game.  Actually you'd be amazed was a Juris Doctorate can get you.  In your case, it'd get you a fucking clue.



Apparently it's possible to "lose the game" by pointing out logic predates law. Fascinating.



> No but your idiotic presumption was that it wouldn't be long until they were armed and ready to strike Americans.  Don't backtrack your shit if you want to be so erudite spitting out written diarrhea.



Apparently you forgot this all began with Freedan being anti-gun to the point of confiscation.

I don't need to backtrack. You _do_ need to learn to follow a logical sequence to its natural conclusion.

The government isn't necessarily going to do jack shit. They could just as well do nothing, or a whole bunch of irrelevant somethings. 

If they go the route Freedan advocates, then that's where my "craziness" will emerge. It isn't difficult to understand.


----------



## LouDAgreat (Jan 22, 2013)

Considering the shit you spout, anyone, military service or not would fear and disdain you.


----------



## Mael (Jan 22, 2013)

> Fear the "crazy, stupid, dumb, meathead, idealistic, libertarian" citizen.



Admitting you have a problem is the first step to recovery, paranoid one.

The truth is you make yourself come off crazy, stupid, idealistic, and paranoid.  Not one person here actually agrees with you and we're coming from all walks of life.  AZ is already a fucking looney-bin state with the fact you once elected Jan Brewer and towns with open white supremacists as authority figures, but you take it to a whole other level.

I don't actually fear you.  I wish you'd jump into moving traffic...but I don't fear you.  Why?  Because we have legitimate authority figures ready to take you down when you want to act stupid and paranoid.

And fuck you too.  I do serve to assist those in actual need, actual civilians who care more about their security than some dubious interpretation of the Second Amendment.  If I could be selective, I'd feed you to the wolves.


----------



## Bryan Paulsen (Jan 22, 2013)

LouDAgreat said:


> Considering the shit you spout, anyone, military service or not would fear and disdain you.



Yeah, yeah. It's why gun-control advocates like yourself _really_ don't mind using the State to kill any "gun nut" that would resist the confiscation _Freedan_ desires.

_If that ever comes_, then you guys will get what you desire, and you won't have to worry about the problem anymore. The "gun nuts" will be killed _en masse_, and you will have the society you desire.

Let the chips fall where they may.


----------



## Mael (Jan 22, 2013)

Bryan Paulsen said:


> Yeah, yeah. It's why gun-control advocates like yourself _really_ don't mind using the State to kill any "gun nut" that would resist the confiscation _Freedan_ desires.
> 
> _If that ever comes_, then you guys will get what you desire, and you won't have to worry about the problem anymore. The "gun nuts" will be killed _en masse_, and you will have the society you desire.
> 
> Let the chips fall where they may.



We're not trying to kill you or even advocate it, you fringe, we're simply advocating that you don't need umpteen fucking guns.

Holy shit you are surreal.


----------



## Bryan Paulsen (Jan 22, 2013)

Mael said:


> Admitting you have a problem is the first step to recovery, paranoid one.
> 
> The truth is you make yourself come off crazy, stupid, idealistic, and paranoid.  Not one person here actually agrees with you and we're coming from all walks of life.  AZ is already a fucking looney-bin state with the fact you once elected Jan Brewer and towns with open white supremacists as authority figures, but you take it to a whole other level.



Color me unimpressed with your _appeal to popularity_. I couldn't care less if the _whole forum_ endorsed _Freedan_'s gun-control solution.

And the bigot makes his appearance. By living in Arizona I clearly give assent to all of the things the State does. Brilliant. It's good to know the _association fallacy_ is alive and well.



> I don't actually fear you.  I wish you'd jump into moving traffic...but I don't fear you.  Why?  Because we have legitimate authority figures ready to take you down when you want to act stupid and paranoid.



...



			
				Mael said:
			
		

> *But my fear is healthy. Stupidity, as in your case, ought to be feared. That's why there needs to be order and control, because fucking fringe meatheads like you will actually say stupid shit like killing people all for your precious guns.* The Bible is fuckall compared to the current situation of continuous misinformation and profiteering schmucks like Rush telling you that the Big Bad Gubment out ta git yer gunz.



You were saying?



> And fuck you too.  I do serve to assist those in actual need, *actual civilians* who care more about their security than some dubious interpretation of the Second Amendment.  If I could be selective, *I'd feed you to the wolves.*



The first steps down the road to democide always begin with dehumanization. Good job Mael, your sociopathy is showing.


----------



## Mael (Jan 22, 2013)

I said I have a fear of the truly crazy and stupid.  You're not quite there...yet.  You just need to spout off a little more pigheaded idealism and then I might fear you.

And yeah, having been in Arizona for months on end along with seeing how your politics works gives me that little itty bit of judgment I can make.  You had Jan Brewer running shit.  That doesn't speak well for your state and I can reserve my right to judge it since you want to be so gung-ho with freedoms.

I frankly don't care if it's sociopathic.  If I care more about the greater good of civilians safe and sacrificing the gun nut crazies, color me sociopath.

I love your sweeping generalization about the military too.  I bet you know fuck all about any Armed Forces.


----------



## Bryan Paulsen (Jan 22, 2013)

Mael said:


> We're not trying to kill you or even advocate it, you fringe, we're simply advocating that you don't need umpteen fucking guns.
> 
> Holy shit you are surreal.



Did you forget where this started?

_Freedan_ wants to eliminate gun ownership in its entirety. _LouDaGreat_ does as well, although he took much longer to chime in. They both want the State to have an absolute monopoly on force.

Your hysterics stem from not knowing where this started. I was primarily arguing against them, and still am. _They_ have intellectual importance to the discussion.

You, on the other hand, are the bastardized middleground of gun control that has no intellectual significance whatsoever and isn't worth arguing with. When you're ready to take a logical, principled stand on something we can talk. Otherwise, shut the fuck up.


----------



## TSC (Jan 22, 2013)

the argument


----------



## Velocity (Jan 22, 2013)

Bryan Paulsen said:


> The "gun nuts" will be killed _en masse_, and you will have the society you desire.



Do you honestly believe that an amendment to the Second Amendment would result in a mass democide? 'Cause that's really stupid. Taking guns away is for the purpose of _saving_ lives, not taking _more_.


----------



## LouDAgreat (Jan 22, 2013)

Bryan Paulson said:
			
		

> Look at those goalposts move! First it was "designed to kill a lot of people" and now the emphasis is just on effort.



Uhhh, just because I failed to list all of it's capabilities of an assault rifle doesn't mean those capabilities no longer define the gun. The goal post has always been in the same spot, your eyes are too fucked up to see the whole thing. 



> I'm pretty sure if a Navy SEAL ever went insane he'd have no issue at all dispatching plenty of people, with just a hunting knife, with little effort.
> 
> Let's ban SEALs!
> 
> ... or let's just not use arbitrary standards. I like that one better.



There aren't as many crazy Seals roaming around the country as there are assault rifles are there?

Perhaps, a Navy Seal could do that, but considering that Navy seals are trained to perform exceptionally dangerous missions in foreign territory, that sort of training is necessary. 



> If you're attacked by 2 people, then you're screwed? Score one for Lou's self-defense system.



Make due with the gun and ammo you have. Assuming you've gone through proper training to hold and fire a gun, you should be good with 6 rounds and an extra clip to stop 2 people. If you can't shoot 2 targets accurately with a pistol, what are you going to do with an assault rifle? Shoot blindly everywhere and hope one of the bullets kills them? 


> Where do you derive this limit? Why do these goalposts move so often?



It will vary from state to state, as long as it's not assault rifle ammo. Legal limit of one extra clip would be my preference.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 22, 2013)

Wow. That's just...paranoid..."gun nuts" is an apt term, because it seems like most everyone I've seen trying to argue in favor of assault weapons comes off as such, or perhaps even insane...based off these wild delusions of persecution and unrealistic scenario of a civilian militia overthrowing a first-world military...I think the craziest of the arguments is the claim of needing them for self-defense, because I think it really establishes how out of your mind and plain paranoid you have to be to seriously think you need such a high-powered rifle for _self-defense_.


----------



## Mael (Jan 22, 2013)

> You, on the other hand, are the bastardized middleground of gun control that has no intellectual significance whatsoever and isn't worth arguing with. When you're ready to take a logical, principled stand on something we can talk. Otherwise, shut the fuck up.



Fuck you, I'm not the guy spouting off that the military has a predisposed antipathy towards any and all civilians including its own.  Seriously, eat a five pound bag of dicks for that one.

I know where they stand and they absolutely come off as more rational instead of your absurd Molon Labe Spartan wannabe jock bullshit.  Oh no I'm the middle ground, woe is me.  I like responsible gun ownership but relegated to pistols and shotguns, reasonable and practical tools necessary for home defense, not weapons you can use 600m out.  I believe in safe and responsible ownership and not a market where it's like fucking candy and stringent background checks are for pussy liberals.  I want actual screening of mental sickness and profiling (OH NOES MAH LIBERTEHS) to bar mentally impaired people from going anywhere near a firearm and those around them to also be adamant in lock and key.  I guess I'm an asshole for thinking liberty and responsibility should have its terms of agreement instead of free-for-all under your bellicose language of tough guy defense and overcompensation for what appears to be shrunken nuts or something.

So I have a better idea.  You pull your head from out of your upper intestinal tract seeing it's shoved so far up your ass, and come at me with a greater sense of realism.  I doubt this will be soon seeing how you already fringed yourself to derp levels with the drones.

Let me spell this out for you.  NOBODY. IS. ADVOCATING. MASS. SLAUGHTER. OF. GUN. OWNERS. SO. GET. THAT. THROUGH. YOUR. THICK. MEATY. SKULL.


----------



## Bryan Paulsen (Jan 22, 2013)

Mael said:


> I said I have a fear of the truly crazy and stupid.  You're not quite there...yet.  You just need to spout off a little more pigheaded idealism and then I might fear you.
> 
> And yeah, having been in Arizona for months on end along with seeing how your politics works gives me that little itty bit of judgment I can make.  You had Jan Brewer running shit.  That doesn't speak well for your state and I can reserve my right to judge it since you want to be so gung-ho with freedoms.



Huzzah for bigotry.



> I frankly don't care if it's sociopathic.  If I care more about the greater good of civilians safe and sacrificing the gun nut crazies, color me sociopath.



Become a politician. You are perfectly suited towards that line of work.



> I love your sweeping generalization about the military too.  I bet you know fuck all about any Armed Forces.



I'll be the first to say there are both veterans and current service members that have a healthy respect for the public and their disparate opinions. They know they serve _everyone_, even those they don't agree with.

You don't qualify. You damned yourself with your own words ("actual citizens", "throw to the wolves").


----------



## Mael (Jan 22, 2013)

Yet you already alluded to a predisposition toward antipathy regardless of person in the Armed Forces.  Now who's moving the goalposts, Banner?


----------



## LouDAgreat (Jan 22, 2013)

Bryan Paulsen said:


> Yeah, yeah. It's why gun-control advocates like yourself _really_ don't mind using the State to kill any "gun nut" that would resist the confiscation _Freedan_ desires.
> 
> _If that ever comes_, then you guys will get what you desire, and you won't have to worry about the problem anymore. The "gun nuts" will be killed _en masse_, and you will have the society you desire.
> 
> Let the chips fall where they may.



We'll attempt non lethal disarmament. We want you to see a society without assault rifles. Maybe then you'll say "Oh, this aint so bad, I can live with this" instead of falling into anti-government paranoid madness.


----------



## Bryan Paulsen (Jan 22, 2013)

Velocity said:


> Do you honestly believe that an amendment to the Second Amendment would result in a mass democide? 'Cause that's really stupid. Taking guns away is for the purpose of _saving_ lives, not taking _more_.



It depends on how centralized power is. R. J. Rummel has written extensively on Authoritarianism and centralization of power being the leading causes of democide.



LouDAgreat said:


> Uhhh, just because I failed to list all of it's capabilities of an assault rifle doesn't mean those capabilities no longer define the gun. The goal post has always been in the same spot, your eyes are too fucked up to see the whole thing.



Goalposts are a term used to indicate arbitrary standards. The line you're choosing to draw in the sand for what is available and what isn't for self-defense is without logical basis.



> Make due with the gun and ammo you have. Assuming you've gone through proper training to hold and fire a gun, you should be good with 6 rounds and an extra clip to stop 2 people. If you can't shoot 2 targets accurately with a pistol, what are you going to do with an assault rifle? Shoot blindly everywhere and hope one of the bullets kills them?



Given handguns are responsible for most gun violence why would you find this logically permissible?

Why are assault rifles the problem at this point?



> It will vary from state to state, as long as it's not assault rifle ammo. Legal limit of one extra clip would be my preference.



This would be a regulatory nightmare. How do you intend to enforce _that_? Especially in the days of the 3-D printer? More Authoritarianism? Never mind the fact that part of the reason that ammo is hard to regulate is it easier to make your own ammo than your own gun.



Mael said:


> Fuck you, I'm not the guy spouting off that the military has a predisposed antipathy towards any and all civilians including its own.  Seriously, eat a five pound bag of dicks for that one.



The military in general is a mixed bag. *You* are another matter entirely.



> I like responsible gun ownership but relegated to pistols and shotguns, reasonable and practical tools necessary for home defense, not weapons you can use 600m out.  I believe in safe and responsible ownership and not a market where it's like fucking candy and stringent background checks are for pussy liberals.  I want actual screening of mental sickness and profiling (OH NOES MAH LIBERTEHS) to bar mentally impaired people from going anywhere near a firearm and those around them to also be adamant in lock and key.  I guess I'm an asshole for thinking liberty and responsibility should have its terms of agreement instead of free-for-all under your bellicose language of tough guy defense and overcompensation for what appears to be shrunken nuts or something.



Legislating responsibility is a pipe dream that stems from childish thinking. You think that somehow, if you just create enough laws, people will become responsible. Somehow, if you create just enough laws, people will obey them unwaveringly.



> Let me spell this out for you.  NOBODY. IS. ADVOCATING. MASS. SLAUGHTER. OF. GUN. OWNERS. SO. GET. THAT. THROUGH. YOUR. THICK. MEATY. SKULL.



Advocating mass confiscation, as per _Freedan_, is advocating precisely that, because that is exactly what will happen.

You would do well to understand that.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Jan 22, 2013)

Confiscation of guns is mass slaughter now ?

What in the fuck ?


----------



## Bryan Paulsen (Jan 22, 2013)

LouDAgreat said:


> We'll attempt non lethal disarmament. We want you to see a society without assault rifles. Maybe then you'll say "Oh, this aint so bad, I can live with this" instead of falling into anti-government paranoid madness.



"Give me your property."

"No."

And then you forcefully subdue/arrest the person and confiscate their property, correct? Yeah, I'll pass. And good luck getting the State to insist on non-lethal means when confiscating firearms.



Mael said:


> Yet you already alluded to a predisposition toward antipathy regardless of person in the Armed Forces.  Now who's moving the goalposts, Banner?



There are plenty of pro-natural rights activists in the armed forces _to this day_, so it would make no sense for me to have any level of dislike for _them_.

The members of the armed forces like *you* are a different matter entirely, and consistent with individuals that have a strong Authoritarian streak. *You* are a stereotype, which is why, when I found out you were in the military, everything made sense.

And from your neg:



			
				Mael said:
			
		

> Psychopath.



Yawn.



			
				Elim Rawne said:
			
		

> Confiscation of guns is mass slaughter now ?
> 
> What in the fuck ?



When the gun owners resist, what else is going to happen?

Unless, of course, you expect the guns to just be handed over because the State says so.


----------



## Mael (Jan 22, 2013)

You're beyond absurd.  I'm done with you.  You clearly have some strange dissonance of words and meanings.

Confiscation means genocide...did the doctor cover up dropping you when born?


----------



## Elim Rawne (Jan 22, 2013)

Bryan Paulsen said:


> When the gun owners resist, what else is going to happen?
> 
> Unless, of course, you expect the guns to just be handed over because the State says so.



What are you gonna do ? Pull a gun on the cops ?


----------



## neko-sennin (Jan 22, 2013)

*FAQ on Violence*

An interesting FAQ by Sam Harris:



Though he may advocate a higher degree of regulation than I consider practical, he does make some very rational arguments for both gun regulations _and_ self-defense, addressing the legal, cultural and logistical aspects of addressing firearms in America. He also does an excellent job of debunking the thinking of people who have been privileged to live in any bubble where they've never had to give any serious thought to defending themselves, as well as common misconceptions about both how violent crimes are perpetrated, as well as how guns actually figure into it. He also takes a chunk out of Europe's crime stats, pointing out that a term as vague as "assault" (which is many times more prevalent, by any stats than in the US) can range anywhere from a punch in the face to being beaten within an inch of your life, and left permanently disfigured or disabled for life. In places where the only "guns" at the show are the kind you pump iron for, and thugs walk all over everyone else with impunity.

Too long to post in its entirety, I'll just drop this sample, wherein he makes a very compelling argument against disarming women:



> ...I share Faircloth’s concern about the safety of women. Ironically, the danger that men pose toward women is my primary reason for thinking that guns should be legal and available to responsible adults. *As someone who was raised by a single mother, and as the father of little girl, I tend to view all questions of self-defense through the lens of what will enable a woman to protect herself from a man who is bent upon raping and/or killing her.*
> 
> This is where making the ethical case for guns is easiest. Generally speaking, men are larger than women, and even where no difference in size exists, men tend to be much stronger (especially in the upper body). Women, therefore, are at an intrinsic disadvantage in any form of unarmed combat with a man. That’s not to say that women can’t be trained to protect themselves effectively. The average man would be demolished by Ronda Rousey. But a man with the same skills will always tend to have an advantage over a woman, whether in striking or grappling—or even when fighting with non-ballistic weapons like knives, clubs, etc. *As my friend Rory Miller points out, “size, strength and reach really matter with any hand-held weapon… and stronger people tend to be quicker as well. This is a huge genetic stack in men’s favor… All of that was neutralized by the introduction of the handgun.”*
> 
> Yes, drunken fights between couples can turn needlessly deadly in the presence of a gun. *But guns are not the reason that so many women live in terror of men—because guns obviate every difference between a man and a woman relevant to violence.* Again, I will be accused of peddling NRA propaganda about guns being “an equalizer.” But it’s not propaganda if it’s true. I’m not saying that guns are the solution to the problem of domestic violence. Clearly, there is a need for strict laws, good policing, psychological counseling, women’s shelters, and other resources. Above all, women must refuse to stay in abusive relationships. But when all else fails, a gun in the hands of a woman trained to use it is the best solution that civilization has found for the problem of male aggression (I am speaking here, not about domestic violence per se, but about attacks on women in general). Indeed, there are situations in which a gun in the hands of a woman who is untrained can suffice to save her life. *An ethical argument for the banning of guns must tell us why it would have been preferable for  to have been armed only with a frying pan.*



He makes some other excellent points about self-defense, non-lethal weapons, and the mentality of both violent criminals and the victims they pick out of the crowd, that must be addressed for any rational, rather than knee-jerk emotional, changes to America's gun laws.


----------



## Mael (Jan 22, 2013)

Elim Rawne said:


> What are you gonna do ? Pull a gun on the cops ?



At least 4chan would appreciate the an heroism.


----------



## Velocity (Jan 22, 2013)

Bryan Paulsen said:


> When the gun owners resist, what else is going to happen?



If people resist, they'll just be arrested and their weapons confiscated. Try to resist arrest and obviously the charges will be more severe. I would sincerely hope nobody in America is stupid enough to go to prison just to keep a gun.

Either way, I would assume that the Government will do what ours did in the UK. Directly following the new law, there'll be a period of amnesty where people are encouraged to give their guns up and there'll be another amnesty period every so often after that for the foreseeable future so that others can as well. They won't force people to give up their guns, but will obviously confiscate any that they find, and it will of course become nearly impossible to legally purchase new firearms so there will be criminal charges involved for those who have firearms confiscated.


----------



## Bryan Paulsen (Jan 22, 2013)

Mael said:


> You're beyond absurd.  I'm done with you.  You clearly have some strange dissonance of words and meanings.
> 
> Confiscation means genocide...did the doctor cover up dropping you when born?



Confiscation means the death of those that resist. There will be a number of people that resist. _How many_ is for history to tell if confiscation ever occurs in the US. 

Hopefully it doesn't, for my sake.



Elim Rawne said:


> What are you gonna do ? Pull a gun on the cops ?



If they ever come to take my property by force?

Yes. They would be treated no differently than a common thug. No doubt that in the end I would die, but oh well.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Jan 22, 2013)

Bryan Paulsen said:


> If they ever come to take my property by force?
> 
> Yes. They would be treated no differently than a common thug. No doubt that in the end I would die, but oh well.



Oh good, so you're gonna pull a gun on cops. 

Fucking hell, what the hell was I expecting from the same guy who was conflating utiliarianism and authoritarianism ?


----------



## Bryan Paulsen (Jan 22, 2013)

Velocity said:


> If people resist, they'll just be arrested and their weapons confiscated. Try to resist arrest and obviously the charges will be more severe. I would sincerely hope nobody in America is stupid enough to go to prison just to keep a gun.



Resistance will be done with gunfire. The State will most definitely use superior force. Those that resist will end up dead, in the end.

There are Americans "dumb enough" to go to prison and die for our rights, in this case the right to self-defense. I'm one of them. Everyone else can call it "improving the gene pool" or some such in that case - I care not.


----------



## hadou (Jan 22, 2013)

I don't know a lot about the legal ramifications, but from what I have heard, if an assault rifle ban is passed (which is unlikely in the divided government we have now), that means the selling and buying of those weapons would be illegal. It does not mean you would have to give your assault weapon to the government if it was purchased before the ban.


----------



## Bryan Paulsen (Jan 22, 2013)

Elim Rawne said:


> Oh good, so you're gonna pull a gun on cops.
> 
> Fucking hell, what the hell was I expecting from the same guy who was conflating utiliarianism and authoritarianism ?



At least get it right: people with anti-social personality traits use Utilitarian means to solve moral dilemmas. Authoritarianism is a natural result of Utilitarianism being used to solve social dilemmas and is in line with individuals possessing anti-social personality traits.

The consistent underlying factor to both is the inherent sociopathy.


----------



## Mael (Jan 22, 2013)

John Stuart Mill was apparently a sociopath.  The More You Know. 

Or rather...The Shit You Spew.


----------



## Bryan Paulsen (Jan 22, 2013)

Mael said:


> John Stuart Mill was apparently a sociopath.  The More You Know.
> 
> Or rather...The Shit You Spew.





I've linked this study multiple times, but as people seem resistant to reading, it'll doubtlessly be lost on you.


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Jan 22, 2013)

Elim Rawne said:


> What are you gonna do ? Pull a gun on the cops ?



That's not far from the truth of what happens when the United States Government attempts firearm seizures.  See also, 

At the end of it, around 80 people were dead and the United States Government had handed the Right Wing Militant types all the propaganda fuel they would ever need on a silver platter.

If the goal of firearms control legislation is to reduce violence, *forcible confiscation has a piss poor history of reducing violence*. 

Indeed, the current all-time domestic terrorism record holder for the USA was inspired to apply his military training to mass murder after seeing the events of Waco.  I'd rather not see unstable individuals provoked to violence by unnecessary legislation.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Jan 22, 2013)

Bryan Paulsen said:


> At least get it right: people with anti-social personality traits use Utilitarian means to solve moral dilemmas. Authoritarianism is a natural result of Utilitarianism being used to solve social dilemmas and is in line with individuals possessing anti-social personality traits.
> 
> The consistent underlying factor to both is the inherent sociopathy.



1. That's a weak correlation at best. 
2. The connection you think that exists between those three things is tenous at best. You're just jumping to conclusions.


----------



## Mael (Jan 22, 2013)

Bryan Paulsen said:


> I've linked this study multiple times, but as people seem resistant to reading, it'll doubtlessly be lost on you.



I've read it, but I still think you're full of shit.  You're still conflating utilitarianism with authoritarian ways and that anyone who is anti-social harbors these two attitudes.  You make yet another sweeping generalization as I'm willing to bet the others here and the vast majority of pro-control are anything but anti-social.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Jan 22, 2013)

Bryan Paulsen said:


> I've linked this study multiple times, but as people seem resistant to reading, it'll doubtlessly be lost on you.





> Importantly, these results also give rise to a methodological
> concern in the study of moral judgment?namely, that
> we should be wary of favoring a method that equates the
> quality of moral judgment with responses that are endorsed
> ...





> Nor do our results show that endorsing utilitarianism is
> pathological, as it is unlikely that the personality styles
> measured here would characterize all (or most) proponents
> of utilitarianism as an ethical theory (nor is the measure
> ...



Read your own goddamn paper first


----------



## Bryan Paulsen (Jan 22, 2013)

Elim Rawne said:


> 1. That's a weak correlation at best.
> 2. The connection you think that exists between those three things is tenous at best. You're just jumping to conclusions.



#1) Read the study I linked Mael to.

#2) Authoritarianism, taken to its logical end, the Authoritarian State, is responsible for the most anti-social actions in human history. See: democide.

#3) The logical connection for Authoritarianism and Utilitarianism lies in Collectivism, in particular "public safety" arguments and the implicit dichotomy between _proletariat_ and _bourgeoisie_.


----------



## Mael (Jan 22, 2013)

Elim Rawne said:


> Read your own goddamn paper first



You're asking too much of him, Elim.  He's getting Karl Rove on us.


----------



## Bryan Paulsen (Jan 22, 2013)

Elim Rawne said:


> Read your own goddamn paper first



Neither of those form criticisms of the general conclusion.

To wit, there are Utilitarians that dismiss the State. However, such individuals are logically precluded from using Authoritarian means to solve social dilemmas.



			
				Mael said:
			
		

> I've read it, but I still think you're full of shit. You're still conflating utilitarianism with authoritarian ways and that anyone who is anti-social harbors these two attitudes. You make yet another sweeping generalization as I'm willing to bet the others here and the vast majority of pro-control are anything but anti-social.



They can be conflated whenever the individual in question is a Statist. Statism, by definition, is Authoritarian. Utilitarianism and Totalitarianism (a fully Authoritarian State) have had a logical link dating back to philosopher Karl Popper.

Anti-social individuals most definitely have an Authoritarian streak, demonstrated capably by historical despots (ie: Stalin). 

Anti-social individuals demonstrate a marked disregard for human rights. That includes an individual that would seek to abrogate or limit the right to self-defense for a perceived gain in utility, and enforce it using the authority of the State.


----------



## Blue (Jan 22, 2013)

Human rights are and can be only recognized so long as they do not infringe upon the human rights of others, and prime among all human rights is the right to life.

Given the statistics for deaths, both homicide and suicide, murder and otherwise, caused by firearms, the continued and unabrogated right to bear arms could easily be considered a de facto violation of everyone's right to life.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Jan 22, 2013)

> Neither of those form criticisms of the general conclusion.



Yes, they do. Just because *you* don't think it does, doesn't make it false. You have been disproven by your own scientific backing. Back the fuck off.


----------



## Bryan Paulsen (Jan 22, 2013)

Blue said:


> Human rights are and can be only recognized so long as they do not infringe upon the human rights of others, and prime among all human rights is the right to life.
> 
> Given the statistics for deaths, both homicide and suicide, murder and otherwise, caused by firearms, the continued and unabrogated right to bear arms could easily be considered a de facto violation of everyone's right to life.



Aggressing against the rights of the individual does not implicitly aggress against the rights of the collective. The latter does not follow from the former.

The right to bear arms can only be considered a violation of the right to life in the event an individual aggresses against another's right to life. At such a point, upon the initiation of aggression, the aggressor forfeits their rights due to violating the principle of self-ownership.


----------



## LouDAgreat (Jan 22, 2013)

Anti-social behavior is expressed far more by those seeking wide spread availability of assault weapons, not to mention those that say they will die to defend a supposed right to such tools.


----------



## Mael (Jan 22, 2013)

Elim Rawne said:


> Yes, they do. Just because *you* don't think it does, doesn't make it false. You have been disproven by your own scientific backing. Back the fuck off.



Hilariously enough...it should be noted that most of the school/public shooting killers were incredibly anti-social or had social disorders (Klebold/Harris, Cho, Lanza) while harboring sociopathic thoughts...and Lordy did they appreciate their rights to bear arms.


----------



## Bryan Paulsen (Jan 22, 2013)

Elim Rawne said:


> Yes, they do. Just because *you* don't think it does, doesn't make it false. You have been disproven by your own scientific backing. Back the fuck off.



Caveats do not overrule the conclusion of the study. In no study _ever_ is this the case, as it would undermine any value to the conclusions of the study.

What did the study find? Those that more strongly endorsed Utilitarian solutions scored higher on scores of psychopathy, machiavellianism, and life meaningless.

That was the conclusion, and it establishes the link between anti-social traits and Utilitarian solutions _without regard for the State_. The caveats do not detract from the conclusion, the caveats point out that the conclusion does not address all of the potential ramifications, nor does it make Utilitarian conclusions _implicitly_ bad.

I take that next step. All that is needed, is to link Statists, Authoritarians by definition, to the anti-social results of Authoritarianism, and to draw into question all Utilitarian attempts to address social issues via said Authoritarianism as a result of similar sociopathy.


----------



## Blue (Jan 22, 2013)

Very few psychopaths are violent psychopaths. Indeed, many of the greatest leaders and visionaries in history were psychopaths, and a certain level of psychopathy is a virtual requirement for democratic high office. Utilitarian decisions are almost by definition the correct ones, and utilitarianism does not predicate authoritarianism. If the populist solution is not the utilitarian solution, the responsibility of a worthwhile leader is to change populist opinion.

Your opinion is populist, and sucks.
The utilitarian solution is not confiscation, but rather a ban on new sales, and to allow existing firearms to grandfather themselves into heirloom collections and out of existence.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Jan 22, 2013)

Bryan Paulsen said:


> Caveats do not overrule the conclusion of the study. In no study _ever_ is this the case, as it would undermine any value to the conclusions of the study.
> 
> What did the study find? Those that more strongly endorsed Utilitarian solutions scored higher on scores of psychopathy, machiavellianism, and life meaningless.
> 
> That was the conclusion, and it establishes the link between anti-social traits and Utilitarian solutions _without regard for the State_. The caveats do not detract from the conclusion, the caveats point out that the conclusion does not address all of the potential ramifications, nor does it make Utilitarian conclusions _implicitly_ bad.


It does not establish any connection. It questions the methodology behind the studies about moral judgements. This is from the abstract:


> These results
> question the widely-used methods by which lay moral judgments are evaluated, as these
> approaches lead to the counterintuitive conclusion that those individuals who are least
> prone to moral errors also possess a set of psychological characteristics that many would
> consider prototypically immoral.



The first paragraph of the study disagrees with you, let alone the rest.



> I take that next step. All that is needed, is to link Statists, Authoritarians by definition, to the anti-social results of Authoritarianism, and to draw into question all Utilitarian attempts to address social issues via said Authoritarianism as a result of similar sociopathy.



Go ahead, make a goddamn study then. Until then, stop spouting your inane beliefs like they were scientific facts. They're not, and every evidence you put out (just the one, funny enough), disagreed with you.

Do you even have any backgroud in this , or are academic institutions too authoritarian for you ?


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Jan 22, 2013)

Threads, like visitors, and fish, tend to stink after 31 pages.


----------



## Mael (Jan 22, 2013)

But Cowboy...y'ain't teh mod no mo'.


----------



## Bryan Paulsen (Jan 22, 2013)

Blue said:


> Very few psychopaths are violent psychopaths. Indeed, many of the greatest leaders and visionaries in history were psychopaths, and a certain level of psychopathy is a virtual requirement for democratic high office. Utilitarian decisions are almost by definition the correct ones, and utilitarianism does not predicate authoritarianism. If the populist solution is not the utilitarian solution, the responsibility of a worthwhile leader is to change populist opinion.



The assumption that "Utilitarian decisions are almost, by definition, the correct ones" is logically baseless.

Utilitarianism does not predicate Authoritarianism, nor was it my point. My point is that Authoritarians often use Utilitarian arguments - the former being responsible for the most anti-social events in human history, and the latter being possible to predict due to anti-social personality traits. Karl Popper linked extreme Authoritarianism (Totalitarianism) with Utilitarianism when applied socially, and is sufficient to draw into question Utilitarian attempts to control people.



> Your opinion is populist, and sucks.
> The utilitarian solution is not confiscation, but rather a ban on new sales, and to allow existing firearms to grandfather themselves into heirloom collections and out of existence.



That's _one_ Utilitarian solution.


----------



## Adrianhamm (Jan 22, 2013)

The Space Cowboy said:


> That's not far from the truth of what happens when the United States Government attempts firearm seizures.  See also,
> 
> At the end of it, around 80 people were dead and the United States Government had handed the Right Wing Militant types all the propaganda fuel they would ever need on a silver platter.
> 
> ...



Darn it! Beat me to it! And you forgot  too. 

and going back to eating and research.


----------



## Bryan Paulsen (Jan 22, 2013)

Elim Rawne said:


> It does not establish any connection. It questions the methodology behind the studies about moral judgements. This is from the abstract:
> 
> The first paragraph of the study disagrees with you, let alone the rest.



That isn't all it does, and at this point you're being disingenuous.



> It is also possible that possessing these
> sub-clinical psychopathic traits may be of moral value
> insomuch as individuals who are capable of such emotional
> detachment, while appearing to possess a questionable
> ...



What you are continually failing to understand is that the caveat is addressing potential ramifications, and not attempting to explain what the study actually _found_. Nowhere in the study does it make the claim that it is "only questioning the methodology behind the study of moral judgements". You are, entirely erroneously, asserting that is the case.

If it _were_ the case, then why did the correlation occur? Why explain the possible meaning? In what I just quoted before, they provide a possible explanation. You ignore this explanation, a further part of the caveat, because it is inconvenient for you.


----------



## Blue (Jan 22, 2013)

Bryan Paulsen said:


> Utilitarianism does not predicate Authoritarianism, nor was it my point. My point is that Authoritarians often use Utilitarian arguments - the former being responsible for the most anti-social events in human history,


Since the year 2000, over three hundred thousand Americans have died to gunfire in America.
That's more than were killed in combat over the course of the entire Civil War.
That's more than were killed in combat in WWII.
That is _one hundred times_ the number killed in Iraq and Afghanistan in the same time period.

I would consider that in itself both historical and fairly anti-social.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Jan 22, 2013)

Bryan Paulsen said:


> If it _were_ the case, then why did the correlation occur? Why explain the possible meaning?





> By contrast,
> our respondents, whom we have reason to believe share
> similar emotional tendencies as psychopaths in a clinical
> population, may not only have no concern over such consequences,
> ...



There's your answer. 

You have constantly demonstrated that not only that you lack understanding of methodology and statistics behind the study you keep quoting, but also that you are either unable to comprehend the ramifications of the study or that you're intentionally being dishonest about the whole thing.


----------



## Bryan Paulsen (Jan 22, 2013)

Blue said:


> Since the year 2000, over three hundred thousand Americans have died to gunfire in America.
> That's more than were killed in combat over the course of the entire Civil War.
> That's more than were killed in combat in WWII.
> That is _one hundred times_ the number killed in Iraq and Afghanistan in the same time period.
> ...



There is no doubt that murder is anti-social. On that there is no disagreement.


----------



## Mael (Jan 22, 2013)

raschmol said:


> Personally, I drive a 1995 Civic



That right there is an assault weapon...


----------



## Bryan Paulsen (Jan 22, 2013)

Elim Rawne said:


> There's your answer.



It doesn't negate what the study found. It points out that the respondents may not even be aware of their anti-social traits, or that they just don't care.

It doesn't change the fact that, in the study, the individuals that most strongly endorsed Utilitarian solutions also scored higher on anti-social personality traits.

You can keep dancing, but that fact doesn't change.



> You have constantly demonstrated that not only that you lack understanding of methodology and statistics behind the study you keep quoting, but also that you are either unable to comprehend the ramifications of the study or that you're intentionally being dishonest about the whole thing.



Alright, to highlight how disingenuous you're being:

What did the study find?


----------



## Elim Rawne (Jan 22, 2013)

Bryan Paulsen said:


> It doesn't negate what the study found. It points out that the respondents may not even be aware of their anti-social traits, or that they just don't care.
> 
> It doesn't change the fact that, in the study, the individuals that most strongly endorsed Utilitarian solutions also scored higher on anti-social personality traits.
> 
> ...





> Our study illustrates that the widely adopted use of sacrificial
> dilemmas in the study of moral judgment fails to
> distinguish between people who are motivated to endorse
> utilitarian moral choices because of underlying emotional
> ...





> Finally, our empirical demonstration points to the problematic
> nature of studying moral judgment by identifying
> ??errors?? in how subjects respond to moral dilemmas. As
> Pizarro and Uhlmann (2005) argued, it may be sufficient
> ...



With your gaps in logic and your tendency to jump to conclusions, no wonder you think I am disingenous. You're trying to deflect from the fact that you're wrong and are unwilling to admit it.


----------



## Bryan Paulsen (Jan 22, 2013)

Elim Rawne said:


> With your gaps in logic and your tendency to jump to conclusions, no wonder you think I am disingenous. You're trying to deflect from the fact that you're wrong and are unwilling to admit it.



This is rich coming from a guy that thinks the only point of the study was to question methodology, when it is actually an indictment of Utilitarian solutions in general due to highlighting its relativism. Oy vey, talk about not realizing the ramifications.

Pay careful attention to what you quoted:



> Our study illustrates that the widely adopted use of sacrificial
> dilemmas in the study of moral judgment fails to
> distinguish between *people who are motivated to endorse
> utilitarian moral choices because of underlying emotional
> ...



Anti-social personality traits can easily produce Utilitarian solutions without any logical error on behalf of the individual. That is the point of the entire study.

This point is lost on individuals that think Utilitarianism a _solution_ to moral dilemmas when applied via Authoritarianism, given its long-standing history of anti-social results.



> Finally, our empirical demonstration points to the problematic
> nature of studying moral judgment by identifying
> ‘‘errors’’ in how subjects respond to moral dilemmas. *As
> Pizarro and Uhlmann (2005) argued, it may be sufficient
> ...



In light of the knowledge that Utilitarian responses can come from anti-social means, as the study demonstrated, they come to the conclusion that it probably isn't the right framework for judging morality.

Note the second bolded statement. The whole study is an indictment of Utilitarianism as a means of measuring morals.


----------



## Roman (Jan 23, 2013)

Not gonna bother replying to the three whole pages or so that I missed so I'll just pose a simple but serious question to gun-supporters here:

In your day to day lives, how does owning assault rifles, and indeed guns, help you feel safer? What's so important about guns that they change your lives?



Velocity said:


> Do you honestly believe that an amendment to the Second Amendment would result in a mass democide? 'Cause that's really stupid. Taking guns away is for the purpose of _saving_ lives, not taking _more_.



Oh, Velocity, but Bryan doesn't care that so many people die because of guns in the US. The natural right to taking people's lives is more important 



Mael said:


> Let me spell this out for you.  NOBODY. IS. ADVOCATING. MASS. SLAUGHTER. OF. GUN. OWNERS. SO. GET. THAT. THROUGH. YOUR. THICK. MEATY. SKULL.



Pretty much this. Bryan, did you seriously think about what you were saying in your replies to me? Do you actually think that I, who wants to ban gun-ownership, regardless of class or civil status of any kind other than the armed forces, _in order to stop people from dying_, would be ok with killing gun-owners to take their guns away? I hate to break it to you but we're not in the middle ages anymore. That's why I found it so ridiculous when you went and justified your logic for guns using ancient times as your excuse.


----------



## Bryan Paulsen (Jan 23, 2013)

Freedan said:


> Not gonna bother replying to the three whole pages or so that I missed so I'll just pose a simple but serious question to gun-supporters here:
> 
> In your day to day lives, how does owning assault rifles, and indeed guns, help you feel safer? What's so important about guns that they change your lives?



A means of securing my self-defense has been acquired, and I don't have to pay it a second thought. It's simple, really.

Never mind that, living in rural Arizona as I do, the problem isn't necessarily people. Wildlife in general can be a giant pain in the ass (packs of wild dogs killing your chickens is obnoxious, and chasing them off isn't a solution). I've had three run-ins with rattlesnakes, and only one of the times did the snake slither away instead of getting aggressive. The other two had to be shot. I would _really_ rather not find out if I'm allergic to snake venom the hard way, but that's just me.

People tend to forget that not everyone in this country lives in an urban setting.



> Pretty much this. Bryan, did you seriously think about what you were saying in your replies to me? Do you actually think that I, who wants to ban gun-ownership, regardless of class or civil status of any kind other than the armed forces, _in order to stop people from dying_, would be ok with killing gun-owners to take their guns away? I hate to break it to you but we're not in the middle ages anymore. That's why I found it so ridiculous when you went and justified your logic for guns using ancient times as your excuse.



Mentioning ancient times was providing the historical precedent for a State to keep their monopoly on force absolute. That was tangential to the core discussion. I still, to this point, reject the notion that only the military should have guns. It's an unreasonable argument to make in times of peace, because it serves no purpose - even the most ardent supporters of democratic institutions were critical of standing armies for this reason. It also enables states of undeclared, perpetual warfare as we have now. I would _much_ rather adopt the Swiss model than our current model when it comes to their treatment of the militia as _the people_. They do a reasonably good job of reigning in the innate hypocrisy that permeates US gun politics, and do not discourage gun ownership despite significant regulations.

Now, on the subject of taking guns away - if you operate under the assumption that you are entitled to take away guns in the name of public safety, _then you will be forced to kill the gun owners that resist_. If you think that banning guns will make them disappear and we'll fork over our property, then _The Law of Unintended Consequences_ is going to give you a rude awakening.

If you _do not_ want to confiscate firearms, then all of this is irrelevant. Gun-control advocates that talk about wanting to keep them out of the hands of criminals is all well and fine, because felons have forfeited their rights via aggression against innocent individuals. You also won't find resistance to the State increasing the capacity to study ballistics for crime investigation purposes. Measures pertaining to criminals will not find resistance.

The line is drawn at taking firearms, of all sorts, out of the hands of law-abiding citizens that have not violated the rights of anyone, and reducing their access to ownership. Punishing the innocent should never be an option in a just society.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 23, 2013)

Yeah, but most of the important people in the country happen to live in an urban setting. That's where the education and industry really is.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Jan 23, 2013)

Yeah, trying to take away guns from gun owners is a big no from me. You'll just end up with thousands of dead government officials as Ruby Ridge situations crop up in every populated area. It would literally take an authoritarian government (because no democratically elected US federal government would ever try to ban guns due to 80% of the country supporting their legality) to ban guns nationally. 

The gun culture is too ingrained. People will not give up their guns.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 23, 2013)

I keep looking at Byran's angry Alex Jones like rants and I'm just wondering "Is this what steroids do to you?"


----------



## Enclave (Jan 23, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I keep looking at Byran's angry Alex Jones like rants and I'm just wondering "Is this what steroids do to you?"



Ah, so I'm not the only one who saw his avatar pic and thought "if that's him I wonder how much steroids he takes"


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Jan 23, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I keep looking at Byran's angry Alex Jones like rants and I'm just wondering "Is this what steroids do to you?"



I wouldn't blame him too much. We were raised with the notion that guns safeguarded against tyranny, owning guns is the American way, etc. All of our action heroes in movies used guns to beat the bad guys. 

Bryan Paulsen's beliefs might be a small minority position on NF, but not in America.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 23, 2013)

Shinigami Perv said:


> I wouldn't blame him too much. We were raised with the notion that guns safeguarded against tyranny, owning guns is the American way, etc. All of our action heroes in movies used guns to beat the bad guys.
> 
> Bryan Paulsen's beliefs might be a small minority position on NF, but not in America.


My family owns an assault rifle! It's not like I wasn't raised in the gun capital of the country. I mean you do realize that if you get in a legit gun duel here the most you can get for killing the person is manslaughter.


----------



## Bryan Paulsen (Jan 23, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Yeah, but most of the important people in the country happen to live in an urban setting. That's where the education and industry really is.



That's not an argument for banning guns _carte blanche_. 

Remarkably enough, California actually allows rural gun ownership despite their stringent gun control laws. That was a pleasant surprise, but not enough to put up with their state income tax.



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I keep looking at Byran's angry Alex Jones like rants and I'm just wondering "Is this what steroids do to you?"



I wish I could get angry over this stuff, instead of just apathetic. Anger would at least have some use on the Deadlifting platform. You can't get angry at people that profess a desire to feed you to wolves, all you can do is shake your head and watch how things unfold.

Anyone that gets emotional over this stuff immediately throws any logical merit to their position out of the window for the sake of a fallacy.



Enclave said:


> Ah, so I'm not the only one who saw his avatar pic and thought "if that's him I wonder how much steroids he takes"



Lifetime natural. If I ever use AAS it will be at some point in my late 30s to function as HRT, and only then at physiological dosages. I'm not interested in finding out what supraphysiological dosages will do to me, any benefits be damned.

The picture is me, though.

Sorry to disappoint.


----------



## Roman (Jan 23, 2013)

Bryan Paulsen said:


> A means of securing my self-defense has been acquired, and I don't have to pay it a second thought. It's simple, really.



Pro-tip: self-defense =! killing people. Someone breaks into your house, you do not need a gun to fend them off. Much as I've made fun of you for this, you're a big guy. I'm sure you can defend yourself without having to use a weapon that kills. It isn't right to respond to burglary with murder.



Bryan Paulsen said:


> Never mind that, living in rural Arizona as I do, the problem isn't necessarily people. Wildlife in general can be a giant pain in the ass (packs of wild dogs killing your chickens is obnoxious, and chasing them off isn't a solution). I've had three run-ins with rattlesnakes, and only one of the times did the snake slither away instead of getting aggressive. The other two had to be shot. I would _really_ rather not find out if I'm allergic to snake venom the hard way, but that's just me.



Just a question about this. When you saw the snake, where you close to where one might actually attack you, like its nest? Or did you initiate contact to keep it away? Both? Most animals won't attack you if you don't deliberately bother them, and seeing as rattlesnakes don't actually stalk human beings, this actually makes me curious.



Bryan Paulsen said:


> Mentioning ancient times was providing the historical precedent for a State to keep their monopoly on force absolute. That was tangential to the core discussion.



Idk man, you seemed pretty serious to me. I found it more than just laughable considering first-world countries don't operate on state monopolies the way they used to. Look at the UK, which back then used to be one of the strongest kingdoms. People now don't own weapons and you don't see anywhere near the same amount of murder as you do in the US.



Bryan Paulsen said:


> Now, on the subject of taking guns away - if you operate under the assumption that you are entitled to take away guns in the name of public safety, _then you will be forced to kill the gun owners that resist_. If you think that banning guns will make them disappear and we'll fork over our property, then _The Law of Unintended Consequences_ is going to give you a rude awakening.



Cry all you want, but you're only further proving the need to take guns away. If responsible gun-owners, as you claim to be, would start to kill anyone trying to take their guns away, guns which they don't need in their daily lives as you have demonstrated, it just goes to show that they're not actually as responsible as they think.

And what part of "it will take a few decades to ban guns at best" don't you understand? That's what I've been saying all along. I'm not pretending it's something that can happen overnight because the bigger problem is the gun culture.


----------



## Bryan Paulsen (Jan 23, 2013)

Freedan said:


> Pro-tip: self-defense =! killing people. Someone breaks into your house, you do not need a gun to fend them off. Much as I've made fun of you for this, you're a big guy. I'm sure you can defend yourself without having to use a weapon that kills. It isn't right to respond to burglary with murder.



Exercising self-defense can include killing the attacker, and is rightly judged as an ethical action. 

Any attempt to inhibit self-defense by placing importance on the "rights of the attacker" (protip: aggressors have no rights, them being forfeit by virtue of their actions creating an unnatural scenario) only serves to further weaken the victim, and call into question the moral authority of the person being attacked to respond effectively.



> Just a question about this. When you saw the snake, where you close to where one might actually attack you, like its nest? Or did you initiate contact to keep it away? Both? Most animals won't attack you if you don't deliberately bother them, and seeing as rattlesnakes don't actually stalk human beings, this actually makes me curious.



You don't "initiate contact to keep it away", you get the fuck away _if it's an option_. Number 1 was well within striking distance due to mutually startling eachother (rattlesnakes will begin rattling when you're still a good distance off if they're aware of you, this one was well within 2-3 feet from me, and coiled), Number 2 wouldn't leave my backyard (actually giving chase the first time I ever saw it), and Number 3 is the only one that slithered away after I performed a feat of athleticism to jump up on something that I will never again duplicate in my life. If it had stuck around like Number 2, then it would have needed termination as well.

The idea of being disarmed with wildlife around is the height of stupidity. "Just leave it alone" sure as hell doesn't create a solution, either.



> Idk man, you seemed pretty serious to me. I found it more than just laughable considering first-world countries don't operate on state monopolies the way they used to. Look at the UK, which back then used to be one of the strongest kingdoms. People now don't own weapons and you don't see anywhere near the same amount of murder as you do in the US.



The State retains a monopoly on force, or does its best to, in both developed and undeveloped nations. I have *zero* interest in following UK's model, because it only weakens the _proletariat_.

I want _empowerment_ of the _proletariat_, putting them on par with the State, and that isn't impossible. Something more along the lines of the Swiss model would fulfill this just fine, albeit with some significant changes.



> Cry all you want, but you're only further proving the need to take guns away. If responsible gun-owners, as you claim to be, would start to kill anyone trying to take their guns away, guns which they don't *need* in their daily lives as you have demonstrated, it just goes to show that they're not actually as responsible as they think.



Anyone that thinks theft in the name of public safety is reasonable is disqualified from discussing what constitutes ethical behavior on the basis of having no logical basis for discerning ethical conduct.

And you invoked the word "need" - relativism is rejected.



> And what part of "it will take a few decades to ban guns at best" don't you understand? That's what I've been saying all along. I'm not pretending it's something that can happen overnight because the bigger problem is the gun culture.



I am not interested in a ban. *Period*. Incremental or otherwise. Any solution that _only_ restricts the _proletariat_, but not the _bourgeoisie_ is rejected on the grounds of hypocrisy.


----------



## Roman (Jan 23, 2013)

Bryan Paulsen said:


> Exercising self-defense can include killing the attacker, and is rightly judged as an ethical action.
> 
> Any attempt to inhibit self-defense by placing importance on the "rights of the attacker" (protip: aggressors have no rights, them being forfeit by virtue of their actions creating an unnatural scenario) only serves to further weaken the victim, and call into question the moral authority of the person being attacked to respond effectively.



Just because a man is a criminal doesn't make him subhuman and thus worth killing. The only reason people historically deemed it fair to kill others is out of self-interest. The important thing here isn't the right of the attacker, but something I like to call "human right." Good or evil, law-abiding citizen or criminal, both are human. Both deserve a chance. Death is absolute and there's nothing pretty or glamorous about it.

Have you ever actually killed someone Bryan?



Bryan Paulsen said:


> You don't "initiate contact to keep it away", you get the fuck away _if it's an option_. Number 1 was well within striking distance due to mutually startling eachother (rattlesnakes will begin rattling when you're still a good distance off if they're aware of you, this one was well within 2-3 feet from me, and coiled), Number 2 wouldn't leave my backyard (actually giving chase the first time I ever saw it), and Number 3 is the only one that slithered away after I performed a feat of athleticism to jump up on something that I will never again duplicate in my life. If it had stuck around like Number 2, then it would have needed termination as well.
> 
> The idea of being disarmed with wildlife around is the height of stupidity. "Just leave it alone" sure as hell doesn't create a solution, either.



Animals actually would retaliate in fear same way any human would if someone's property was being attacked. If you're invading what they perceive to be their territory, you can expect hostility. I can only surmise number 2 thought your backyard was its territory (and it's not as tho the snake could understand it was *your* backyard).

Anyways, having never been in close proximity to snakes, it's not something I can judge you for. However, let's not pretend now that we all need guns because the wildlife is against you. From what I hear, wildlife is ten times worse in Australia and THEY get by without guns (as compared to the US).



Bryan Paulsen said:


> The State retains a monopoly on force, or does its best to, in both developed and undeveloped nations. I have *zero* interest in following UK's model, because it only weakens the _proletariat_.
> 
> I want _empowerment_ of the _proletariat_, putting them on par with the State, and that isn't impossible. Something more along the lines of the Swiss model would fulfill this just fine, albeit with some significant changes.



You know nothing Bryan Paulsen. Haven't you yet understood not even police officers are allowed to carry guns? Only the armed forces are and they're not at all involved with citizen affairs. The justice system here doesn't enforce anything using guns. The proletariat and the state, in that respect, are both in the same position.



Bryan Paulsen said:


> Anyone that thinks theft in the name of public safety is reasonable is disqualified from discussing what constitutes ethical behavior on the basis of having no logical basis for discerning ethical conduct.
> 
> And you invoked the word "need" - relativism is rejected.



Who in the world said anything about thievery??? Seriously, stop turning the argument around by putting words in people's mouths.

Ah but wait. I see what you mean. You think we're trying to *steal* your guns. That's not the correct term for it because:

steal  (stl)
v. stole (stl), sto?len (stln), steal?ing, steals
1. To take (the property of another) without right or permission.
2. To present or use (someone else's words or ideas) as one's own.
3. To get or take secretly or artfully.

If guns are legally banned, the ones without permission are people like you who still have them. The state has every right to revoke them and they're not being taken away secretly (and certainly not artfully).

I invoked the word need because let's face it. You don't need a gun to go buy groceries. You don't need a gun to go to the cinema. You don't need a gun to go to the gym. You most certainly don't need a gun to wash your car. All you do with your gun is you buy it. Put it somewhere and you don't touch it for months, years, possibly never. This isn't relativism, it's realism.



Bryan Paulsen said:


> I am not interested in a ban. *Period*. Incremental or otherwise. Any solution that _only_ restricts the _proletariat_, but not the _bourgeoisie_ is rejected on the grounds of hypocrisy.



Since when is the military the bourgeoisie? Are you still stuck in the colonial era or something? Considering your previously expressed general disdain toward military servicemen (I don't cur much favor for the armed forces either but for an entirely different reason than you), I'm not surprised that you would hate the idea of them having guns and not you. You're the very personification of paranoia.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 23, 2013)

Freedan said:


> Pro-tip: self-defense =! killing people. Someone breaks into your house, you do not need a gun to fend them off. Much as I've made fun of you for this, you're a big guy. I'm sure you can defend yourself without having to use a weapon that kills. It isn't right to respond to burglary with murder.



No you need to kill them, fending them off is how my brother got shot. If someone breaks in your house, you shoot to kill. If you shoot to wound you could end up paying their medical bills for years because they can sue you. 

If someone's bold enough to break into my house, they're bold enough to get gunned the fuck down. That's not "gun culture" that's just common sense talking. Someone invades your home with possible intent to harm? Fuck them up.


----------



## Roman (Jan 23, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> No you need to kill them, fending them off is how my brother got shot. If someone breaks in your house, you shoot to kill. If you shoot to wound you could end up paying their medical bills for years because they can sue you.
> 
> If someone's bold enough to break into my house, they're bold enough to get gunned the fuck down. That's not "gun culture" that's just common sense talking. Someone invades your home with possible intent to harm? Fuck them up.



I'm sorry to hear about your brother. But my point is this:

Take guns away from criminals but not "responsible owners" like you. They're not armed with a gun, but you are. Do you still shoot to kill?


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 23, 2013)

> Pro-tip: self-defense =! killing people. Someone breaks into your house, you do not need a gun to fend them off. Much as I've made fun of you for this, you're a big guy. I'm sure you can defend yourself without having to use a weapon that kills. It isn't right to respond to burglary with murder.



I actually disagree with this, I just don't think you need an assault rifle to do it though.


----------



## Mael (Jan 23, 2013)

I have to agree as well.  Expecting criminals not to have guns is naive...especially in America.  Pistols and shotguns are ok for home defense, just not heavy weaponry.


----------



## EJ (Jan 23, 2013)

Freedan, nah. Someone deserves to have a weapon to defend themselves in their own home. They don't need an AK or something, but they can have a handgun or something.


----------



## Roman (Jan 23, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> I actually disagree with this, I just don't think you need an assault rifle to do it though.





Mael said:


> I have to agree as well.  Expecting criminals not to have guns is naive...especially in America.  Pistols and shotguns are ok for home defense, just not heavy weaponry.



To which I say handguns are the leading cause for such a high murder rate in the US as a result of its easy access. I actually agree with Bryan on this and I don't want to have to repeat the same stats to you too. Do I really have to say again and again I know it's not easy and it'll take years if not decades to curb the gun culture and ban guns? I know it won't happen in America as it is right now, hence you both believe in what you said here. I can expect criminals (the vast majority at least) not to have guns. If you two want to restrict guns from criminals, why are you even saying this?


----------



## Mael (Jan 23, 2013)

Freedan said:


> To which I say handguns are the leading cause for such a high murder rate in the US as a result of its easy access. I actually agree with Bryan on this and I don't want to have to repeat the same stats to you too. Do I really have to say again and again I know it's not easy and it'll take years if not decades to curb the gun culture and ban guns? I know it won't happen in America as it is right now, hence you both believe in what you said here. I can expect criminals (the vast majority at least) not to have guns. If you two want to restrict guns from criminals, why are you even saying this?



But you're coming off in a sense that they should be banned outright.  It's the easy access that's the problem.  Ban assault rifles and just make acquisition harder.

Bryan on the other hand is being a fringe thinking it should be open market.  Be best to stay away there.


----------



## Roman (Jan 23, 2013)

Mael said:


> But you're coming off in a sense that they should be banned outright.  It's the easy access that's the problem.  Ban assault rifles and just make acquisition harder.
> 
> Bryan on the other hand is being a fringe thinking it should be open market.  Be best to stay away there.



The only part I agree with him on is that handguns are the primary cause of gun-related deaths in the US and that's all. The difference is he doesn't care for the sake of the second amendment's sanctity.

And yes, they should be banned. Countries where all guns are banned see a lot less murder taking place and that's me being generous with the wording. Banning assault rifles on their own won't help very much. Make acquisition harder and you make it more difficult for felons, former or present, to get their hands on them. My question is this: if your intention is to keep guns away from criminals, why are you saying it's impossible? You may as well not put restrictions then.


----------



## Mael (Jan 23, 2013)

Are these countries as vast, populous, and demographically diverse as the United States?  If not, then the argument is invalid.  It's impossible to completely dislodge that sort of culture and then you have organized crime to worry about unless you did what Mega suggested and militarize the police.

I'm sorry but your thinking is too...European.  It will never fly here.  Sometimes you have to settle for a middle approach with fierce background checking and no assault rifles while funding mental health research/treatment.  A ban will not stop gangbangers.  Heavy trafficking enforcement will.


----------



## Roman (Jan 23, 2013)

Mael said:


> Are these countries as vast, populous, and demographically diverse as the United States?  If not, then the argument is invalid.  It's impossible to completely dislodge that sort of culture and then you have organized crime to worry about unless you did what Mega suggested and militarize the police.
> 
> I'm sorry but your thinking is too...European.  It will never fly here.  Sometimes you have to settle for a middle approach with fierce background checking and no assault rifles while funding mental health research/treatment.  A ban will not stop gangbangers.  Heavy trafficking enforcement will.



A higher population doesn't have to indicate a higher murder rate by proportion. And just because one country may not be as much of a mixed bag as the other in terms of population doesn't mean one should have a higher murder rather than the other either (unless you're implying more multiculturalism means more crime, which is dangerously close to having racist undertones).

How can you know what will and what won't work in 20 or 30 years? Times always change. I think the problem is with people refusing to accept that possibility.


----------



## LouDAgreat (Jan 23, 2013)

Handgun, single shot rifle, shotgun is the maximum I'd allow. However, in the event of a technological development where a tool incapacitates an individual _non lethally_ for an extended period of time becomes possible, I'd definitely seek banning all guns. Until, then the stated weapons are all I'd allow.


----------



## Roman (Jan 23, 2013)

LouDAgreat said:


> Handgun, single shot rifle, shotgun is the maximum I'd allow. However, in the event of a technological development where a tool incapacitates an individual _non lethally_ for an extended period of time becomes possible, I'd definitely seek banning all guns. Until, then the stated weapons are all I'd allow.



What's wrong with tasers?


----------



## Mael (Jan 23, 2013)

Freedan said:


> A higher population doesn't have to indicate a higher murder rate by proportion. And just because one country may not be as much of a mixed bag as the other in terms of population doesn't mean one should have a higher murder rather than the other either (unless you're implying more multiculturalism means more crime, which is dangerously close to having racist undertones).
> 
> How can you know what will and what won't work in 20 or 30 years? Times always change. I think the problem is with people refusing to accept that possibility.



I'll give you the proportion.  Russia has a higher murder rate than the US and IIRC a lower population.  The thing is that a lot of these countries like South Korea or the UK are much smaller and have a lot less worry with the whole border issue as compared to the US sammiched in between Canada and even worse...Mexico.

Multiculturalism is a failure in Europe but I'll leave that aside.  I prefer assimilation which has been, for better or worse, the American way of doing things.  Multiculturalism brings ethnic and racial tension with it when it's hamfisted into a society that's supposed to be picking out the best aspects of an immigrant culture and infusing it into the home body.  Don't mistake my distaste for multiculturalism for anti-immigration.  But demographics do matter.  Look at poorer white/black/Hispanic neighborhoods as compared to middle to upper class.  The rampage shooters are outliers, mind you, but the factors don't lie.  Urban crime also helps accentuate demographics into handgun violence, alas that spurs the debate over education/income as well.

Because America is not Europe and Europe is not America and ne'er shall the twain meet.



Freedan said:


> What's wrong with tasers?



You don't think much in terms of realism and crime, do you?  Tasers are either up close and personal or a one-and-done thing.  If said criminal had a knife or crowbar and you missed, you're fucked.  He/She won't hesitate to get up close and personal on you for missing.  Whereas a pistol equals multiple chances or a deterrent to stay away.  There is a rational line of logic with firearms and home defense, but you don't need a stockpile is all we're saying.


----------



## Blue (Jan 23, 2013)

Freedan said:


> What's wrong with tasers?



Heavy clothing makes it worthless? 
You get one shot and if you miss, you're fucked?
If there's more than one assailant, you're fucked?
Short range/melee range?
Can be resisted with a high enough electrical resistance stat?


Paulsen isn't wrong when he says trying to ban assault rifles is disingenuous bullshit. 99% of gun crimes are committed with concealed-carry weapons. It's all or nothing. There shouldn't be an in-between.


----------



## Mael (Jan 23, 2013)

Blue said:


> Heavy clothing makes it worthless?
> You get one shot and if you miss, you're fucked?
> If there's more than one assailant, you're fucked?
> Short range/melee range?
> ...



There can absolutely be an in-between.  It's called regulation via background checks and profiling.


----------



## Roman (Jan 23, 2013)

Blue said:


> Heavy clothing makes it worthless?
> You get one shot and if you miss, you're fucked?
> If there's more than one assailant, you're fucked?
> Short range/melee range?
> Can be resisted with a high enough electrical resistance stat?



Fair enough on this point. I was simply curious.



Blue said:


> Paulsen isn't wrong when he says trying to ban assault rifles is disingenuous bullshit. 99% of gun crimes are committed with concealed-carry weapons. It's all or nothing. There shouldn't be an in-between.



I can agree with this. Hence my argument of taking all guns off even if only by an extended period of time.


----------



## Mael (Jan 23, 2013)

> Can be resisted with a high enough electrical resistance stat?



You disappoint me, Blue.


----------



## LouDAgreat (Jan 23, 2013)

Mael said:


> There can absolutely be an in-between.  It's called regulation via background checks and profiling.



I'd put registration and tracking on all guns with that. Not to mention a stronger ATF, permanent record keeping of background checks, greater information sharing between the states and federal agencies. Pretty much everything the NRA has been fighting.


----------



## Blue (Jan 23, 2013)

Mael said:


> You disappoint me, Blue.



Well I had a bit of fun with that, but it's true. A fat enough dude, a person high enough on barbituates, or an electrician who's been shocked to shit so many times he's got a few dead nerves can all remain standing after a taser shot.


----------



## Revolution (Jan 23, 2013)

It just occurred to me that Hollywood did make a movie glorifying gin violence.  "God Bless America", remember?


----------



## Mael (Jan 23, 2013)

Bird of Paradise said:


> It just occurred to me that Hollywood did make a movie glorifying gin violence.  "God Bless America", remember?



That was actually more a scathing dark comedy about shamelessness and crudeness in America exacerbated by awful media, religious fundamentalism, horrid parenting from political correctness or a perverted sense of liberalism, and celebrity glorification through acts of stupidity as said by the main character Frank.



> My name is Frank. That's not important. The important question is: who are you? America has become a cruel and vicious place. We reward the shallowest, the dumbest, the meanest and the loudest. We no longer have any common sense of decency. No sense of shame. There is no right and wrong. The worst qualities in people are looked up to and celebrated. Lying and spreading fear is fine as long as you make money doing it. We've become a nation of slogan-saying, bile-spewing hatemongers. We've lost our kindness. We've lost our soul. What have we become? We take the weakest in our society, we hold them up to be ridiculed, laughed at for our sport and entertainment. Laughed at to the point, where they would literally rather kill themselves than live with us anymore.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Jan 23, 2013)

Movie glorifying gun violence?  Reading this thread I'd say "Red State"


----------



## Ippy (Jan 23, 2013)

Freedan said:


> What's wrong with tasers?



They can still kill people, especially those with heart issues to begin with.


----------



## kazuri (Jan 23, 2013)

After the first shooting after the first gun ban what are the anti-gun people going to talk about?


----------



## Mael (Jan 23, 2013)

kazuri said:


> After the first shooting after the first gun ban what are the anti-gun people going to talk about?



Maybe finally a focus on mental health/societal issues.  The bullying program is already a politically correct clusterfuck.


----------



## Enclave (Jan 23, 2013)

kazuri said:


> After the first shooting after the first gun ban what are the anti-gun people going to talk about?



You do know that banning assault weapons is only a start right?  It's only one step in a huge number of things that need to be fixed.

I've never understood the thought process of people who say "What's the point in doing such and such if it won't 100% solve the issue?!"


----------



## Ippy (Jan 23, 2013)

Enclave said:


> I've never understood the thought process of people who say "What's the point in doing such and such if it won't 100% solve the issue?!"


It's the "all or nothing" fallacy.  Most people use it, in one way or another.

It's the same faulty logic that has some people criticize those who could eat a burger and fries, and still order a diet soda.  Those extra several hundred calories are significant.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 24, 2013)

[YOUTUBE]dIops72Xua4[/YOUTUBE]

Guns aren't the problem. Poor people are!



Mael said:


> That was actually more a scathing dark comedy about shamelessness and crudeness in America exacerbated by awful media, religious fundamentalism, horrid parenting from political correctness or a perverted sense of liberalism, and celebrity glorification through acts of stupidity as said by the main character Frank.



I believe I had told her this before, well I can't say I'm shocked she forgot.



MMAthematician said:


> It's the "all or nothing" fallacy.  Most people use it, in one way or another.
> 
> It's the same faulty logic that has some people criticize those who could eat a burger and fries, and still order a diet soda.  Those extra several hundred calories are significant.



Because we are a country accustomed to immediate gratification, we expect immediate results, and when that doesn't happen we give up on it entirely. We are pretty terrible when it comes to long-term efforts.


----------



## Mael (Jan 24, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> [YOUTUBE]dIops72Xua4[/YOUTUBE]
> 
> Guns aren't the problem. Poor people are!



To this day I don't understand why we elect so out of touch people.

Oh wait I forgot...old people. 



> Because we are a country accustomed to immediate gratification, we expect immediate results, and when that doesn't happen we give up on it entirely. We are pretty terrible when it comes to long-term efforts.



FIX OUR RECESSION NOW OBAMAERZ!  ROME WUZ BILT IN A DEH!


----------



## Linkdarkside (Jan 24, 2013)

*Most Americans See Obama's Gun Control Plan Favorably*




> Most Americans respond positively to the stricter gun control measures Barack Obama proposed last week in the wake of the tragic shootings in Newtown, Conn. - but by less of a margin than such measures receive outside the context of partisan politics.
> 
> Fifty-three percent in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll view Obama's gun control plan favorably, 41 percent unfavorably. Strong proponents outnumber strong opponents by 38 vs. 31 percent in this poll, produced for ABC by Langer Research Associates.
> 
> ...



http://news.yahoo.com/majority-sees...n-favorably-120211861--abc-news-politics.html


----------



## Griever (Jan 24, 2013)

^odd the majority of polls on the matter I've seen say the opposite.

Anyways, there is nothing wrong with our current gun laws (read: ) except for the fact that they are not enforced, which is where a smart politician would turn his attention to before even considering passing new laws.


----------



## Mael (Jan 24, 2013)

Polls are schizo...remember?

Only Nate Silver can give us the Word of God.


----------



## drache (Jan 25, 2013)

Griever said:


> ^odd the majority of polls on the matter I've seen say the opposite.
> 
> Anyways, there is nothing wrong with our current gun laws (read: ) except for the fact that they are not enforced, which is where a smart politician would turn his attention to before even considering passing new laws.



Polling the NRA or the teaparty is not representive of the united states griever

and yes there's lots wrong with our current gun laws, you don't need a freaken ak 47 or m 16


----------



## Griever (Jan 25, 2013)

drache said:


> Polling the NRA or the teaparty is not representive of the united states griever



And where in my post did i mention the NRA or the Tea party?, nice try though.  



> and yes there's lots wrong with our current gun laws, you don't need a freaken ak 47 or m 16



What stupidity, since when does anyone have to need something to have it?.


----------



## drache (Jan 25, 2013)

Griever said:


> And where in my post did i mention the NRA or the Tea party?, nice try though.



then please post your polls because the NRA nuts and the tea party are about the only ones I know right now opposing Obama's rather common sense proposals



Griever said:


> What stupidity, since when does anyone have to need something to have it?.



and you call me stupid? you don't need a rocket launcher either, you gonna claim you should have it too?


Come on at least make this challenging for me


----------



## Roman (Jan 25, 2013)

Griever said:


> What stupidity, since when does anyone have to need something to have it?.



So you're saying anyone can go up and buy an assault rifle, a weapon that is overkill even for pro-gun advocate's supposed standards of self-defense just cuz you can?

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FopyRHHlt3M[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Shoddragon (Jan 25, 2013)

Griever said:


> And where in my post did i mention the NRA or the Tea party?, nice try though.
> 
> 
> 
> *What stupidity, since when does anyone have to need something to have it?*.



what kind of argument is that? that shit works when you're talking about some low level things like toys, video games and crap like that. not when you're talking about assault weaponry that is complete and utter overkill and provides more of a danger to society than it helps.


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Jan 25, 2013)

Speaking of weaponry, a 17 year old here , was just arrested for allegedly beating her to death with the butt of a shotgun.  The crazy-pants photographs are great too.

Don't think any regulations would have prevented something like this.



> So you're saying anyone can go up and buy an assault rifle, a weapon that is overkill even for pro-gun advocate's supposed standards of self-defense just cuz you can?



So you're saying you would sacrifice essential liberties for temporary safety in light of a rare but horrifying event?  Why does that sound exactly the same as the logic that got the Patriot Act passed?


----------



## Mael (Jan 25, 2013)

I forgot to mention that of the regulations Obama's suggesting, there is also a drive to help delve into mental illness research and treatment especially for teens and twentysomethings who might still have hope of getting fixed.  I'd also fix this politically correct bullshit anti-bullying campaign we have going on too.  That could help at least with school shootings and the like.

Urban crime?  Oh Lordy...lotta work there.



> Why does that sound exactly the same as the logic that got the Patriot Act passed?



This is with the assumption that we're trying to equate gun owners to Muslim radical terrorists.  It's a very different game when it comes to counterterrorism, man.  Don't quote a dead man to me either, especially one who hadn't the slightest thought of a future where God would drive uneducated people to blow themselves up in front of civilians when such thoughts were non-existent around the late 1700s.


----------



## ImperatorMortis (Jan 25, 2013)

I want this to get passed.. Just to see what happens.


----------



## Lord Yu (Jan 25, 2013)

We need a national registry and the ATF needs more power to inspect inventory.


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Jan 25, 2013)

> This is with the assumption that we're trying to equate gun owners to Muslim radical terrorists. It's a very different game when it comes to counter-terrorism, man. Don't quote a dead man to me either, especially one who hadn't the slightest thought of a future where God would drive uneducated people to blow themselves up in front of civilians when such thoughts were non-existent around the late 1700s.



Mael.  I think you just inadvertently surrendered any right to EVER bitch about constitutionally protected liberties being abrogated in the name of public safety.  I know it may be just a piece of paper to you, but the Bill of Rights does mean something.



> We need a national registry and the ATF needs more power to inspect inventory.



For a lot of firearms this exists.  They're called NFA weapons.  The ATF has already had powers of inventory inspection.  They are also a hilariously corrupt and incompetent federal agency when it comes to firearms enforcement


----------



## Mael (Jan 25, 2013)

The Space Cowboy said:


> Mael.  I think you just inadvertently surrendered any right to EVER bitch about constitutionally protected liberties being abrogated in the name of public safety.  I know it may be just a piece of paper to you, but the Bill of Rights does mean something.



Call me John Stuart Mill then.  Besides, you're speaking in ideals and I'm speaking in relativity.  For example, Muslim cartoon criticism is something you can enjoy under the BoR, but people who harbor desires to inflict harm on Americans to include Americans themselves?  Yeah I'll take security kthx.  Ne'er shall the twain meet in this day and age it seems.  Shit...I can't even recall the last time I did bitch about "liberties being abrogated" probably because it hasn't been transformed into a Ray Bradbury novel.

The Bill of Rights does mean something but to me I think you're overreacting over the Patriot Act.  I'm not all for it but complete liberty is a kindness taken as weakness by those outside seeking to harm.  It has yet to transform America into this police state that radicals talk about.  The fact remains that the concept of radical Islam in modern context is foreign to those back in those days as was the geopolitics we face today with the age of information.  It's like when Bryan belted out Ralph Waldo Emerson...it's the words of a dead man who wasn't aware of the modern and REAL situation.

But as I stated before...you're probably an idealist.  I think we won't get any production if we continue the dialogue further.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Jan 25, 2013)

TSC: Do you support the right of private citizens to own fully automatic handheld military-grade weapons?


----------



## Blue (Jan 25, 2013)

The Patriot Act works. I'm just sayin'.

Big part of the reason there hasn't been a successful terror attack in America since 9/11, despite numerous attempts.


----------



## drache (Jan 25, 2013)

The Space Cowboy said:


> Speaking of weaponry, a 17 year old here , was just arrested for allegedly beating her to death with the butt of a shotgun.  The crazy-pants photographs are great too.
> 
> Don't think any regulations would have prevented something like this.
> 
> ...




Essential liberties? What bullshit is this? The framers lived in the era of the single shot musket where if you were good you'd get 2 shots a minute not SIX HUNDRED or more. They lived in a time where your max range was about a couple hundred yards with a create deal of luck.

And more over they never intended anything but the right of the citizens to form a *well regulated* militia. Which is something you gun nuts always skip right over when you try and use the 2nd ammendment to justify your ownership of anything that catches your fancy.

Face it Cowboy, you really don't understand the constitution at all


----------



## Mael (Jan 25, 2013)

Idealists.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 25, 2013)

The Space Cowboy said:


> Speaking of weaponry, a 17 year old here , was just arrested for allegedly beating her to death with the butt of a shotgun.  The crazy-pants photographs are great too.
> 
> Don't think any regulations would have prevented something like this.
> 
> ...



Why do these arguments tend to be so terrible? Oh, an instant, non-violent utopia hasn't been established so it is all a failure. Let's just do nothing.


----------



## navy (Jan 25, 2013)

Stephen King converted me.


----------



## Revolution (Jan 26, 2013)

*Twelve-year-old Bryan Co. girl shoots home intruder*



I like this girl 



> BRYAN COUNTY, OK - A man who broke into a home near Calera got a surprise Wednesday morning, when he was shot by a 12-year-old girl who was in the home alone.
> 
> Debra St. Clair, the girl's mother, said her daughter called her at work to say an unknown man was ringing the doorbell. When the girl didn't answer, the man went around to the back and kicked in the back door.
> 
> ...



Know what to do if a burglar walks or climbs into your home.


----------



## Toroxus (Jan 26, 2013)

Bird of Paradise said:


> Know what to do if a burglar walks or climbs into your home.



If they present an immediate threat to mine or a family's well-being, they'll be disabled via a .45.



> St. Clair said her daughter's bravery was rewarded with an ice cream cone.


Maybe I'll get catnip some day. 

I'm suck an addict.


----------



## Ari (Jan 26, 2013)

she       owns


----------



## dummy plug (Jan 26, 2013)

> Jones was arrested in September 2011 for allegedly abducting a 17-year-old girl with a diminished mental capacity.



christ, good thing she hit him when she fired...who knows what that guy could have done to her


----------



## Utopia Realm (Jan 26, 2013)

Good job. Hopefully that idiot learns his lesson for good.


----------



## Lew (Jan 26, 2013)

This will probably become an example those pro gun nuts will use against gun laws.


----------



## Toroxus (Jan 26, 2013)

NufcLew said:


> This will probably become an example those pro gun nuts will use against gun laws.



I'm surprised the freedom-stripping anti-gun loonies even allowed a story like this to be published.


----------



## Lew (Jan 26, 2013)

Toroxus said:


> I'm surprised the freedom-stripping anti-gun loonies even allowed a story like this to be published.



Meh, Americans can debate over this all they want, doesn't affect the UK. Also you can keep Piers.


----------



## Ippy (Jan 26, 2013)

Of course, in the pro-gun nut psyche, this event will negate the last 10 random crazy person shooting rampages and a minimum 5 accidental shootings.


----------



## Toroxus (Jan 26, 2013)

I love the connection that "pro-gun" is related to "nut."


----------



## Ippy (Jan 26, 2013)

Toroxus said:


> I love the connection that "pro-gun" is related to "nut."





I said "pro-gun nut".

As in, the pro-gun... nuts.  Crazy people.  Lunatics.

You can be pro-gun, but still thinking logically about the political and social climate the US is in.

The "nuts" I'm referring to cannot.


----------



## Toroxus (Jan 26, 2013)

I'm sorry, I didn't know this thread dealt with incidents in which guns saved lives. I mean, it's in the very title that it is about accidents and anti-gun discussion like an endless vortex.


----------



## drache (Jan 26, 2013)

Toroxus said:


> I'm sorry, I didn't know this thread dealt with incidents in which guns saved lives. I mean, it's in the very title that it is about accidents and anti-gun discussion like an endless vortex.



I think politically Toroxus there is hardly any intent to actually completely or almost completely ban guns like say in the UK (no matter how much of a good idea this might be). However let's be clear guns are rarely used in home defense and frankly you don't need a 30 round mag or an ak 47 or a fucking rocket launcher or machine gun for home defense

So if you can't accept that there are some common sense restrictions that need to be enacted along with mandatory background checks on any and all gun sales then yes you are a gun nut.


----------



## LouDAgreat (Jan 26, 2013)

Bird of Paradise said:


> I like this girl
> 
> 
> 
> Know what to do if a burglar walks or climbs into your home.



.40 Glock

Wouldn't be surprised if this story is used to justify Assault Rifles for home defense.


----------



## drache (Jan 26, 2013)

the irony of that lou is that any actual serious and responsible gun owners should be able to readily admit that the last thing you want for home defense is an assault rifle but like you that's what I expect to happen 

And in the process those people to reveal themselves for the ignorant fools they are


----------



## Pilaf (Jan 27, 2013)




----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 27, 2013)

Toroxus said:


> I love the connection that "pro-gun" is related to "nut."



As far as assault on rifles go they are.  Because they tend to be paranoid, which shouldn't be surprising. An one whom thinos they need a gun like that for any reason in this country would have to be quite paranoid.


----------



## Cthulhu-versailles (Jan 27, 2013)

i hope for everyone's sake i never own a stockpile of assault rifles. sometimes i get people confused with zombies. i'm not alone either...


----------



## hammer (Jan 27, 2013)

is it wrong of me to find that girl awesome?


----------



## Toroxus (Jan 27, 2013)

drache said:


> However let's be clear guns are rarely used in home defense and frankly you don't need a 30 round mag or an ak 47 or machine gun for home defense.



Funny you mention AK47, because it's likely I wouldn't be here if my grandfather didn't defend his family from an intruder, whom just tried to murder his wife, with an AK74. The intruder had a machete/dagger and left after my grandfather shot a couple warning shots. Why shoot warning shots? Well, one of the primary things that allowed him to do so was that he had a multi-round magazine and the gun was semi-auto.

Just because my entire family wouldn't exist without them, doesn't mean it justifies the death of others because of them. However, as an un-aging ancient catboy, in my life, I've come to a conclusion about humanity:

There will always be people that have a will to kill another person, and where there's a will, the human spirit will find a way. It doesn't matter what the way is, knives, rocks, fists, guns, fertilizer, gasoline, etc. there will always be a tool that enables the act. Guns are great equalizer and one of the best tools to kill someone with, however, it's also one of the best tools to defend yourself with.

The common element in people killing innocents is the person who kills. Duh. That's where I believe we need to focus, because as it is, detection and aid for people with mental problems in America is legendarily poor, and that's where I think the real problem is. A knee-jerk reaction to a tragedy to be a puppet of an agenda never protects anyone.



> So if you can't accept that there are *some common sense restrictions* that need to be enacted along with mandatory background checks on any and all gun sales then yes you are a gun nut.


It's this "common sense" that is being debated.


----------



## drache (Jan 27, 2013)

Toroxus said:


> Funny you mention AK47, because it's likely I wouldn't be here if my grandfather didn't defend his family from an intruder, whom just tried to murder his wife, with an AK74. The intruder had a machete/dagger and left after my grandfather shot a couple warning shots. Why shoot warning shots? Well, one of the primary things that allowed him to do so was that he had a multi-round magazine and the gun was semi-auto.
> 
> Just because my entire family wouldn't exist without them, doesn't mean it justifies the death of others because of them. However, as an un-aging ancient catboy, in my life, I've come to a conclusion about humanity:
> 
> ...



that's a lovely personal story but the fact is that by and large handguns are the preferred 'home defense' weapon and in point of fact most experts would actually reccomend a smaller caliber then something absurd like the 5.56mm or 7.62

as to your strawman, first that's a circular argument. Second it's as I said a strawman, even if people will always try to kill people that doesn't mean you need a fully automatic weapon or a freaken rocket launcher

and frankly I am sick of the other strawman that this is a 'knee jerk reaction' it's not, America per fucking captial leads just about EVERY first world nation in gun violence. This macho cowboy bullshit isn't working. You want a riffle or shotgun for hunting? Fine but you surely don't need more then 5 rounds with either. You want a weapon for home defense?  Fine but a modren hand gun is more then enough.

You don't need military hardware and you certainly don't have any constituional right to it. End of discussion on that

And if you can't support mandatory background checks for weapons then as I said you're a gun nut


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 27, 2013)

Toroxus said:


> Funny you mention AK47, because it's likely I wouldn't be here if my grandfather didn't defend his family from an intruder, whom just tried to murder his wife, with an AK74. The intruder had a machete/dagger and left after my grandfather shot a couple warning shots. Why shoot warning shots? Well, one of the primary things that allowed him to do so was that he had a multi-round magazine and the gun was semi-auto.
> 
> Just because my entire family wouldn't exist without them, doesn't mean it justifies the death of others because of them. However, as an un-aging ancient catboy, in my life, I've come to a conclusion about humanity:
> 
> ...



That story really reinforced nothing on the idea that assault weapons should remain legal. All it infers is that the intruder was scared off by gunfire period. A handgun or shotgun would've served that purpose in that case,  and be more than enough to kill if it came  to it. 

It's moronic to see people talk of self-defense in regards to assault rifles,  because the truth is you don't need a gun of such calibers for that situation, and your little story did nothing to refute that notion. If you believe people are just gonna kill,  and in turn see any regulations or restrictions useless then let's just open up drones, silos,  and warheads for civilians to purchase too.


----------



## drache (Jan 27, 2013)

if that's the case I call the tactical nuke!


----------



## Bazu'aal (Jan 27, 2013)

Be a man. Use a sword.


----------



## Roman (Jan 27, 2013)

Toroxus said:


> Funny you mention AK47, because it's likely I wouldn't be here if my grandfather didn't defend his family from an intruder, whom just tried to murder his wife, with an AK74. The intruder had a machete/dagger and left after my grandfather shot a couple warning shots. Why shoot warning shots? Well, one of the primary things that allowed him to do so was that he had a multi-round magazine and the gun was semi-auto.



I'm sorry to hear about your grandfather's wife. However, as Seto said, warning shots imply that the intruder was scared by gunshots. Warning shots with a handgun could've easily sufficed, especially in light of the fact the guy only had a bladed weapon. Any gun would've proven superior. This doesn't prove anything about assault weapons being necessary for home defense. Granted, this might not be the message you're sending out, but some people would think it is.



Toroxus said:


> Just because my entire family wouldn't exist without them, doesn't mean it justifies the death of others because of them. *However, as an un-aging ancient catboy*, in my life, I've come to a conclusion about humanity:







Toroxus said:


> There will always be people that have a will to kill another person, and where there's a will, the human spirit will find a way. It doesn't matter what the way is, knives, rocks, fists, guns, fertilizer, gasoline, etc. there will always be a tool that enables the act. Guns are great equalizer and one of the best tools to kill someone with, however, it's also one of the best tools to defend yourself with.



Strawman argument. Just because some people will always have a will to kill doesn't mean we should do nothing about guns purely because they'll find other ways to kill. First off, here's a little fact I've long since grown tired of reiterating but is not actually understood by anyone, guns contribute to 70% of all homicides in the US. It also happens that homicides in the US are unacceptably high by first world standards. Secondly, the ease with which people can kill with guns is incredible, especially compared to the majority of other ways in which people could kill that you listed. If anything, the fact some people will be willing to kill is even more reason not to let such efficient tools of death to be easily accessible.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Jan 27, 2013)

> An Iowa gun dealer was hospitalized after he accidentally shot  himself in the hand before a gun show Friday afternoon at the Iowa State  Fairgrounds.
> 
> The 54-year-old St. Charles resident told  police he was showing off a .25 caliber pistol he thought was unloaded  when he slid the action of the gun causing it to fire. The bullet went  through his left palm, according to a Polk County Sheriff’s report.




(See source for full article)


----------



## Toroxus (Jan 27, 2013)

Oh boi. 
This is the homo thread all over again. Anywho, my desire to debate was defeated with:



I hope you don't mind if I appropriately use this image in a future response of mine.


----------



## drache (Jan 27, 2013)

so apparently 'homo' is now Toxorus' way of saying 'can't debate so taking my ball and going home'


----------



## Toroxus (Jan 28, 2013)

drache said:


> so apparently 'homo' is now Toxorus' way of saying 'can't debate so taking my ball and going home'




I was actually referring to the blatant strawmanning in which I was being criticized for my support of people to bear rocket launchers and nukes. Of course, I never made any such comments and have no such support for these things. This straw-manning reminded me of the homo thread, in which my support of homos having the right to live was translated by some as me also supporting the right of pedophilia and bestiality. Naturally, I never said anything of the sort, so hence the strawman.

Sorry to disappoint, but I'm not really in the mood to debate at the moment.


----------



## Roman (Jan 28, 2013)

Toroxus said:


> I was actually referring to the blatant strawmanning in which I was being criticized for my support of people to bear rocket launchers and nukes. Of course, I never made any such comments and have no such support for these things. This straw-manning reminded me of the homo thread, in which my support of homos having the right to live was translated by some as me also supporting the right of pedophilia and bestiality. Naturally, I never said anything of the sort, so hence the strawman.
> 
> Sorry to disappoint, but I'm not really in the mood to debate at the moment.



To be fair, you made it sound like this:

"People will always have the will to kill. As a result, it doesn't make much of a difference if it's with guns or with knives and fists (lol)."

That's the strawman - implying that guns don't make a difference if there's a will to kill.


----------



## drache (Jan 28, 2013)

Toroxus said:


> I was actually referring to the blatant strawmanning in which I was being criticized for my support of people to bear rocket launchers and nukes. Of course, I never made any such comments and have no such support for these things. This straw-manning reminded me of the homo thread, in which my support of homos having the right to live was translated by some as me also supporting the right of pedophilia and bestiality. Naturally, I never said anything of the sort, so hence the strawman.
> 
> Sorry to disappoint, but I'm not really in the mood to debate at the moment.



Frankly Freedan said all I need to say on the topic though I will point out that behavior in another thread is utterly meaningless here


----------



## EvilMoogle (Jan 29, 2013)

More lives saved by responsible gun owners!


> Friends of Diaz, of Duluth, told Channel 2 Action News that he and  others were trying to find a friend’s house, but their GPS instead led  them to the home on Hillcrest Road, off Indian Trail Road.
> 
> 
> After  seeing the car in his driveway, Sailors came out of his home, went back  inside, then came out again with a gun and shot in the air, Yeson  Jimenez, 15, told Channel 2. Jimenez said he and his brother were in the  car with Diaz, along with a female passenger.
> ...


----------



## Roman (Jan 29, 2013)

EvilMoogle said:


> More lives saved by responsible gun owners!



Misleading sentence is misleading 

Really, for people to react out of fear by pulling a gun out and shooting everything in sight is extreme. Since so many are against a total gun ban (even me as things are now), stricter gun laws need to apply for cases such as these.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Jan 29, 2013)

^ In fairness the guy is currently charged with murder (as he should be).

He's trying a self defense defense, we'll see how that goes for him.


----------



## Roman (Jan 29, 2013)

EvilMoogle said:


> ^ In fairness the guy is currently charged with murder (as he should be).



Indeed. I only mentioned it because gun lobbyists insist that the murder rate is irrelevant and guns need to be deregulated regardless.



EvilMoogle said:


> He's trying a self defense defense, we'll see how that goes for him.


----------



## corsair (Jan 29, 2013)

He shoot him in the head while they tried to drive away, I doubt self-defense will convince anyone.


----------



## Mael (Jan 29, 2013)

Did Sailors scream, "Molon Labe!" when firing at Diaz?


----------



## Roman (Jan 29, 2013)

Mael said:


> Did Sailors scream, "Molon Labe!" when firing at Diaz?


----------



## Elim Rawne (Jan 29, 2013)

Mael said:


> Did Sailors scream, "Molon Labe!" when firing at Diaz?



No, they were 5'9-5'10, blonde and pretending to be in the army.


----------



## Mael (Jan 29, 2013)

Elim Rawne said:


> No, they were 5'9-5'10, blonde and pretending to be in the army.



There was only one person shooting.  Grammar fail thus post fail, moral pederaststal maestro.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Jan 29, 2013)

Mael said:


> There was only one person shooting.  Grammar fail thus post fail, moral pederaststal maestro.



It's reading fail, ese. Fuck your couch, cracca


----------



## Mael (Jan 29, 2013)

Elim Rawne said:


> It's reading fail, ese. Fuck your couch, cracca



Buy another one ya rich mothafucka.


----------



## Roman (Jan 29, 2013)

Mael said:


> There was only one person shooting.  Grammar fail thus post fail, moral pederaststal maestro.





Elim Rawne said:


> It's reading fail, ese. Fuck your couch, cracca





Mael said:


> Buy another one ya rich mothafucka.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Jan 29, 2013)

Mael said:


> Buy another one ya rich mothafucka.



I WILL HAVE CONSENSUAL SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH YOUR MOM


----------



## Enclave (Jan 29, 2013)

EvilMoogle said:


> More lives saved by responsible gun owners!



If all those kids in the car would have had AR15s and AK47s then that shooting would never have taken place!


----------



## Bender (Jan 30, 2013)

*'VIDEO GAMES ARE A BIGGER PROBLEM THAN GUNS'!*



> WASHINGTON — Severely wounded and still recovering, former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords begged lawmakers at an emotional hearing Wednesday to act quickly to curb firearms because "Americans are counting on you." Not everyone agreed, underscoring the national political divide over gun control.
> 
> Giffords' 80-word plea was the day's most riveting moment, delivered in a hushed, halting voice two years after the Arizona Democrat suffered head wounds in a Tucson shooting spree that killed six people – and two months after 20 first-graders and six women were slain by a gunman who invaded Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. She retired from Congress last year.
> 
> ...


----------



## Mael (Jan 30, 2013)

> Republicans blamed the nation's gun troubles on a list of maladies including a lack of civility, violent video games and insufficient attention to people with mental problems.



Well despite the video games comment being weak, they're not necessarily wrong about lack of civility and lack of attention to mental illnesses.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 30, 2013)

I think their idea of civility is very different from ours Mael...


----------



## Mael (Jan 30, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> I think their idea of civility is very different from ours Mael...



I'd say it's subjective.  Civility reaches across a multitude of topics so I'm not so quick to dismiss simply because it's Republican.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 30, 2013)

Mael said:


> I'd say it's subjective.  Civility reaches across a multitude of topics so I'm not so quick to dismiss simply because it's Republican.



Well I'm just saying it probably entails a lot of homophobia and theocratic ideals.


----------



## Bender (Jan 30, 2013)

@Mael

I can't recall any incident over the last 5 years being related to gun violence. While it can potentially be an incentive it's a very weak motive towards violence nowadays. Works of fiction can sometimes be someone's reason for their actions (Twilight fans  ) but not in cases of violence.

*NRA Official: Expanded Background Checks Won't Work*



> WASHINGTON -- Wayne LaPierre, chief executive of the National Rifle Association, said Wednesday that he is opposed to closing the so-called gun-show loophole, which allows private sellers to sell firearms without background checks.
> 
> His latest comments in congressional testimony directly contradict testimony that LaPierre gave before the Senate in 1999, when he said, "We think it's reasonable to provide mandatory instant criminal background checks for every sale at every gun show. No loopholes anywhere for anyone."
> 
> ...






Right, Pepe Lepew keep thinking about dollars instead of safety like the rest of your imbecilic band of nonsensical gun-loving nuts. 

Also just for your information about video games NRA nuts:

Gun Homicides: 
2012 Canada 610
2012 United Kingdom 724
2012 United States 15,953 
--------------------------------------
All play the same violent video games..


----------



## Enclave (Jan 30, 2013)

Also worth pointing out, better gun control in the States would also lower Canada's gun crime statistics as damn near all our illegal guns come from the States.


----------



## drache (Jan 30, 2013)

Mael said:


> I'd say it's subjective. Civility reaches across a multitude of topics so I'm not so quick to dismiss simply because it's Republican.


 
sorry mael on this you're utterly wrong

the gop behaves like petulant children and as john stuart said only believes in freedom *from* not freedom *of*

I for one am past sick of the hypocrisy and bullshit from the GOP, they lost the election and even the popular vote in teh house. They need to grow up and fucking deal with it


----------



## Bender (Jan 30, 2013)

@Drache

The dumb cunts also need to come to terms with the fact that they don't control everything. -_- That and also the people aren't the pea-brained morons that they think they are.


----------



## Mael (Jan 30, 2013)

drache said:


> sorry mael on this you're utterly wrong
> 
> the gop behaves like petulant children and as john stuart said only believes in freedom *from* not freedom *of*
> 
> I for one am past sick of the hypocrisy and bullshit from the GOP, they lost the election and even the popular vote in teh house. They need to grow up and fucking deal with it



And their talk of mental illnesses...that wrong too?

I'm just not going to immediately dismiss.  I know you guys are hardcore Dems so really I'm looking at already biased quotes.


----------



## Bender (Jan 30, 2013)

@Mael

It's not about me being a hardcore Dem which is why I condemn most of what the GOP says. It's just that they're so flip floppish on most of their stances in the gun violence issue.


----------



## drache (Jan 30, 2013)

Mael said:


> And their talk of mental illnesses...that wrong too?
> 
> I'm just not going to immediately dismiss. I know you guys are hardcore Dems so really I'm looking at already biased quotes.


 
1. I'm not a hard core democrat

2. sure we need to address mental illness in this nation in a non accusational way and we need more accounting so that people that shouldn't have guns do not have guns we *also* need better gun laws. Civilians do not need fucking military hardware or drum magizines and it's beyond fucking absurd that you can buy whatever you want with no background check at 'private sales' ie gun shows. And that really is what pisses me off the GOP despite *losing* wants only their way and only when they want it. That's not how our government works


_however_ that to me is about remarkable as a broken watch occassionally telling the time right and frankly it means nothing till the GOP addresses the fact that we live in a democracy and that means occassionally no matter how 'right' you think you are you're outvoted. Grow up, suck it up and move on you didn't see democrats going even half as far as the GOP has when Bush II *stole* his first election and likely *stole* his second one.




ps could you please spoiler that sig? the wrap around is semi annoying


----------



## Mael (Jan 30, 2013)

drache said:


> 1. I'm not a hard core democrat
> 
> 2. sure we need to address mental illness in this nation in a non accusational way and we need more accounting so that people that shouldn't have guns do not have guns we *also* need better gun laws. Civilians do not need fucking military hardware or drum magizines and it's beyond fucking absurd that you can buy whatever you want with no background check at 'private sales' ie gun shows. And that really is what pisses me off the GOP despite *losing* wants only their way and only when they want it. That's not how our government works
> 
> ...



That's your ISP...not mine.  Mine shows a complete square.


----------



## drache (Jan 30, 2013)

huh well my isp sucks then lol ty


----------



## The Pink Ninja (Jan 31, 2013)




----------



## Roman (Jan 31, 2013)

FOOL! That's because other countries don't have guns like America does!

Oh wait....



Mael said:


> Well despite the video games comment being weak, they're not necessarily wrong about lack of civility and lack of attention to mental illnesses.



For all we know, as Seto said, their idea of civility is far removed from reality. Plus, when these are the same guys who would readily sacrifice people's safety to sell more guns and earn more profits, you have to wonder how civil an organization trying to make tools of death more readily available to all really is.

Mental illnesses is also a touchy subject. Yes, more attention needs to be placed in it, but it's a mistake to think there's a correlation between mental illnesses and gun violence. Mental illnesses exist in places where there are no guns to begin with anyways. Just because there's such a high rate of gun violence doesn't mean mental illnesses need more attention. Mental illnesses need attention regardless. Medical attention, that is.


----------



## drache (Jan 31, 2013)

The Pink Ninja said:


>


 
ladies and gentlemen the right wing idiots of america!


----------



## Roman (Jan 31, 2013)

drache said:


> ladies and gentlemen the right wing idiots of america!



She got shot so her opinion doesn't matter.....

I would think a shooting victim's opinion matters more than someone who owns a closet full of military hardware they never had to use and will never have to use in their whole life?


----------



## drache (Jan 31, 2013)

Freedan said:


> She got shot so her opinion doesn't matter.....
> 
> I would think a shooting victim's opinion matters more than someone who owns a closet full of military hardware they never had to use and will never have to use in their whole life?


 
you know while I would disagree with that argument at least it would be far better then the vitriol being leveled at her because she dared to speak her mind

the fact is the GOP is a much of misognistic assholes that don't like women 'speaking out of turn'


----------



## Roman (Jan 31, 2013)

drache said:


> you know while I would disagree with that argument at least it would be far better then the vitriol being leveled at her because she dared to speak her mind
> 
> the fact is the GOP is a much of misognistic assholes that don't like women 'speaking out of turn'



I'm mainly alluding to the fact that many of those people who own guns and deem themselves responsible owners have never been in a gunfight themselves. I'll admit that I have not been in one myself, but at the same time I have no wish to be. A lot of gun owners have some romantic notion about gun fighting as a form of self defense without realizing the high risk of someone actually dying, including themselves.

On the other hand, Giffords was shot in the head. She's been in the middle of a shooting and is a victim of it. She knows more about what it means to be in a shooting than a lot of other gun-owners and how horrible it can actually be. I'd think she has a better idea of what gun violence is like than the majority of people who shout "MOLON LABE" and "DON'T MESS WITH MY RIGHTS OR I'LL KILL YOU."


----------



## Cyphon (Jan 31, 2013)

Freedan said:


> A lot of gun owners have some romantic notion about gun fighting as a form of self defense without realizing the high risk of someone actually dying, including themselves.
> 
> On the other hand, Giffords was shot in the head. She's been in the middle of a shooting and is a victim of it. She knows more about what it means to be in a shooting than a lot of other gun-owners and how horrible it can actually be.



Firstly let me start by saying these people on Twitter are terrible. It seems stuff like this crops up to just about every situation and the level of ignorance is.....Disheartening to say the least. 

That aside, I think you are wrong here. The majority of people (gun owners or not) probably have a damned good idea of what it would be like to be in a shootout. The responses in those situations are no different than anything else where fear is involved. Someone popping around a corner at you, being chased by a dog or whatever else applies. Obviously those situations are not as deadly, but the bodies reaction is still the same. 

So while people haven't directly experienced the situation we have all experienced fear and likely even deep fear as well as spikes in adrenaline and things of that nature. 

On the flip side, you could say her opinion is less valid (not based on her mental faculties) but because her opinion is likely clouded by emotion when the responsible way to argue is based on logic. 

As for how I feel.....Her opinion deserves no more or less weight than just about anybody else who is giving one and these people who are so bold on social media sites need to run into some hitmen in the real world......Who have legally owned guns


----------



## Roman (Jan 31, 2013)

Cyphon said:


> That aside, I think you are wrong here. The majority of people (gun owners or not) probably have a damned good idea of what it would be like to be in a shootout. The responses in those situations are no different than anything else where fear is involved. Someone popping around a corner at you, being chased by a dog or whatever else applies. Obviously those situations are not as deadly, but the bodies reaction is still the same.
> 
> So while people haven't directly experienced the situation we have all experienced fear and likely even deep fear as well as spikes in adrenaline and things of that nature.
> 
> ...



You're referring to a different kind of knowledge here than what I'm referring to. Yes, I agree that gun owners know fear, which is perfectly natural. However, are they aware of this fear? When they continuously shout at pro gun-control people that they will fight back with force (read: guns) if the govt tries to take their guns away without thinking about how much better armed the military is already, shouting paraphrases like "Molon Labe" like it actually means something in this day and age, can you really say they're aware of this fear? It sounds more like despite the fear, they will not hesitate to get into a gunfight if not start it themselves.

Perhaps her opinion is based on an emotional argument, but I emotional arguments don't have to be less valid of said emotions are concerned with the greater good and people's safety rather than her own fear of being shot again. It's like saying that she's aware of her fear and makes an argument out of her own fear of what guns do to people to say that guns are dangerous. It doesn't matter that the stats *support* her emotional argument only because it's emotional. It's wrong to automatically discard an argument because of that, or even say that the opposite is true purely because of that.


----------



## Cyphon (Jan 31, 2013)

Freedan said:


> It sounds more like despite the fear, they will not hesitate to get into a gunfight if not start it themselves.



And what is so different about than anything else in life? Not everybody runs from fear or hides from it. It is a thing of men. They don't like to back down or be pushed around. You can just look smaller scale at fights. Most guys will not simply back down or walk away from a fight even if they are scared. 



> It's wrong to automatically discard an argument because of that, or even say that the opposite is true purely because of that.



True. But it is something to consider. These people on Twitter attacked her mental facilities instead of bringing up the more important issue (if there is an issue at all) which is questioning just how clouded her arguments are because of emotion. 

In any case, her being shot should add no extra weight to her argument. That is all I am saying.


----------



## drache (Jan 31, 2013)

Freedan said:


> I'm mainly alluding to the fact that many of those people who own guns and deem themselves responsible owners have never been in a gunfight themselves. I'll admit that I have not been in one myself, but at the same time I have no wish to be. A lot of gun owners have some romantic notion about gun fighting as a form of self defense without realizing the high risk of someone actually dying, including themselves.
> 
> On the other hand, Giffords was shot in the head. She's been in the middle of a shooting and is a victim of it. She knows more about what it means to be in a shooting than a lot of other gun-owners and how horrible it can actually be. I'd think she has a better idea of what gun violence is like than the majority of people who shout "MOLON LABE" and "DON'T MESS WITH MY RIGHTS OR I'LL KILL YOU."


 
ah yeah I agree



Cyphon said:


> Firstly let me start by saying these people on Twitter are terrible. It seems stuff like this crops up to just about every situation and the level of ignorance is.....Disheartening to say the least.
> 
> That aside, I think you are wrong here. The majority of people (gun owners or not) probably have a damned good idea of what it would be like to be in a shootout. The responses in those situations are no different than anything else where fear is involved. Someone popping around a corner at you, being chased by a dog or whatever else applies. Obviously those situations are not as deadly, but the bodies reaction is still the same.
> 
> ...


 
the facts in no way support anything but reasonable gun laws like mandatory background checks and those people are not an abberation and you know it i think


----------



## Roman (Jan 31, 2013)

Cyphon said:


> And what is so different about than anything else in life? Not everybody runs from fear or hides from it. It is a thing of men. They don't like to back down or be pushed around. You can just look smaller scale at fights. Most guys will not simply back down or walk away from a fight even if they are scared.



Yes, but what I'm wondering is if these people are even aware of their fear of gun fights when they will preach Molon Labe despite knowing the dangers guns pose on them and the proven danger guns pose on everyone else.



Cyphon said:


> True. But it is something to consider. These people on Twitter attacked her mental facilities instead of bringing up the more important issue (if there is an issue at all) which is questioning just how clouded her arguments are because of emotion.
> 
> In any case, her being shot should add no extra weight to her argument. That is all I am saying.



It does when you consider most if not all of them have never been shot or know what it's like to be in a gun fight, showing that lack of awareness I mentioned. It is something to consider, but it's just wrong to say "her argument is emotional, therefore it's unimportant and/or not true even tho I know for fact stats prove her right."


----------



## Cyphon (Jan 31, 2013)

drache said:


> the facts in no way support anything but reasonable gun laws like mandatory background checks and those people are not an abberation and you know it i think



I never said they didn't support them.....

And which people are you referring to? If you are referring to the Twitter folk.....Well of course they aren't. There are tons of ignorant people in this world. In fact, I specifically quoted Twitter people during the election who were bashing Stacy Dash because she was a black woman supporting Mitt Romney. 



Freedan said:


> Yes, but what I'm wondering is if these people are even aware of their fear of gun fights when they will preach Molon Labe despite knowing the dangers guns pose on them and the proven danger guns pose on everyone else.



I can't see why they wouldn't be. It is simply that passion and/or anger are overcoming that fear. 



> It does when you consider most if not all of them have never been shot or know what it's like to be in a gun fight, showing that lack of awareness I mentioned.



No, it really doesn't. Again, it may even take away from her argument depending on how much emotion is involved. I really so no lack of awareness from anyone. 



> It is something to consider, but it's just wrong to say "her argument is emotional, therefore it's unimportant and/or not true even tho I know for fact stats prove her right."



It may be wrong but nobody has said that. So what exactly is your point? 

And that said, you are kind of proving my point here anyway. Instead of talking about facts you are talking about how her being shot somehow makes her opinion more valid. As if it has made her a gun expert and given her tons of knowledge on gun safety and things of that nature. So even if she isn't really making an emotional argument, you are kind of making one for her.


----------



## Roman (Jan 31, 2013)

Cyphon said:


> And that said, you are kind of proving my point here anyway. Instead of talking about facts you are talking about how her being shot somehow makes her opinion more valid. As if it has made her a gun expert and given her tons of knowledge on gun safety and things of that nature. So even if she isn't really making an emotional argument, you are kind of making one for her.



That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that while people have that fear you mentioned, the underestimate and/or not aware of it. Considering the stats that prove her argument right (which as opposed to what you're arguing is almost exactly what the twitter responses said), I would think her opinion based on her direct experience on what it's like to be in the middle of a shoot-out is more valuable than the opinion of people who've never been in one and don't know what it's like to actually be fighting for their lives.

Put it this way: who would you trust more in how to fight on a battlefield. Someone who plays CoD every night or a Navy Seal?


----------



## Cyphon (Jan 31, 2013)

Freedan said:


> Put it this way: who would you trust more in how to fight on a battlefield. Someone who plays CoD every night or a Navy Seal?



That.....Doesn't work in the least bit as a comparison for our sakes. You are talking about trained experts compared to people who know nothing of war or battle. Even if it did work, the gun owners would be the seals in this scenario as they likely know far more about guns and gun safety than she does. And I don't mean to be crude towards the lady here, but all she did was get shot. As I said, that doesn't qualify her as some kind of gun expert or even make her much more knowledgeable about the situation of being in a shootout. 

So I will just stick with her having equal weight to her opinion as pretty much everyone else.


----------



## Roman (Jan 31, 2013)

Cyphon said:


> That.....Doesn't work in the least bit as a comparison for our sakes. You are talking about trained experts compared to people who know nothing of war or battle. Even if it did work, the gun owners would be the seals in this scenario as they likely know far more about guns and gun safety than she does. And I don't mean to be crude towards the lady here, but all she did was get shot. As I said, that doesn't qualify her as some kind of gun expert or even make her much more knowledgeable about the situation of being in a shootout.
> 
> So I will just stick with her having equal weight to her opinion as pretty much everyone else.



They would know a lot more about guns and gun safety. But what do they know about being in a shootout? I'm talking about the difference between being a fanatic about guns and gun fighting and actually being in a gunfight. I'm not saying she's a gun expert. I'm saying she's been in a shooting while all those gun owners who're enthusiastic about keeping their guns haven't. The chances of the latter underestimating its dangers are pretty high, as is the case for people who have romantic ideas about going to war after playing CoD or Metal Gear Solid.


----------



## Cyphon (Jan 31, 2013)

Freedan said:


> They would know a lot more about guns and gun safety. But what do they know about being in a shootout? I'm talking about the difference between being a fanatic about guns and gun fighting and actually being in a gunfight. I'm not saying she's a gun expert. I'm saying she's been in a shooting while all those gun owners who're enthusiastic about keeping their guns haven't. The chances of the latter underestimating its dangers are pretty high, as is the case for people who have romantic ideas about going to war after playing CoD or Metal Gear Solid.



Just no man. Somebody came up and shot her. What exactly does she know that they don't? That you can get shot? That you can die if a bullett hits you? That guns are dangerous? I really don't get where you are trying to go with this. 

For that matter, you continue talking about what people say. Actions speak louder than words. Its not as if these people saying they will fight are out looking for shootouts. 

And honestly, I have never met a single person (even people I think are completely stupid) who would underestimate exactly why it means to have a gun pointed at you.


----------



## Roman (Jan 31, 2013)

Cyphon said:


> Just no man. Somebody came up and shot her. What exactly does she know that they don't? That you can get shot? That you can die if a bullett hits you? That guns are dangerous? I really don't get where you are trying to go with this.
> 
> For that matter, you continue talking about what people say. Actions speak louder than words. *Its not as if these people saying they will fight are out looking for shootouts.*
> 
> And honestly, I have never met a single person (even people I think are completely stupid) who would underestimate exactly why it means to have a gun pointed at you.



[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUW3wPKFblE[/YOUTUBE]

While this doesn't reflect the behavior of all gun owners, what it does reflect is how badly people will want to defend their rights despite knowing what it will bring them: death. They may be afraid, but they don't give two cents of care as to whether more guns will bring more death to their countrymen or even themselves. That's the difference between them and Giffords. They don't listen to their fear and instead shout MOLON LABE like it means something.


----------



## Jυstin (Jan 31, 2013)

I don't think the focus should be on gun violence. The focus gets shifted from the crime committed, and is directed solely on the tool used to execute the crime, without really getting to the root of the problem. I've been arguing about gun regulations and the right to keep and bare arms a lot. I've heard many arguments. Here are some compelling words/arguments by a legal immigrant who knows more about our laws and history than most US-born citizens do. Not surprising when I see some of the arguments against guns.

[YOUTUBE]NyYYgLzF6zU[/YOUTUBE]

Gun availability is not the problem for crime rates. Moral decay is.


----------



## Mael (Jan 31, 2013)

For the record I often don't look to twitter or tumblr for real objective analysis.

The former is just a buzzword depository and the other is the penultimate den of retards.


----------



## Roman (Jan 31, 2013)

Jυstin said:


> Gun availability is not the problem for crime rates. Moral decay is.



And again I say this is all the more reason for gun control. Are there more people willing to kill others? Don't make tools designed specifically to make murder easy readily available. If there's a will, people will want to use the easiest method.


----------



## Blue (Jan 31, 2013)

Murder rates in the US are down drastically for the 11th or 12th year in a row, actually.

Gun deaths still up.

Also while I happen to agree with Congresswoman Giffords, her having been shot is not a good reason to agree with her.


----------



## Mael (Jan 31, 2013)

Freedan said:


> And again I say this is all the more reason for gun control. Are there more people willing to kill others? Don't make tools designed specifically to make murder easy readily available. If there's a will, people will want to use the easiest method.



He's full of shit.  Gun access makes murder a helluva lot easier.  Also, really dude don't take him seriously.  Check him out and you'll see why.

Also, moral decay my ass.  Yes shame has been reduced drastically but it hasn't led to an increase in murder.  Moral decay can be decried by the Taliban but look at what they do in the mean in the name of morality.


----------



## Jυstin (Jan 31, 2013)

A while ago, gun access was all over, but we did not have the mass shootings we have had recently. Common sense dictates gun access is not the problem. This is painfully obvious.



Freedan said:


> And again I say this is all the more reason for gun control. Are there more people willing to kill others? Don't make tools designed specifically to make murder easy readily available. If there's a will, people will want to use the easiest method.



I'm sure you payed attention to more of the video than that. Though this news is not exactly news, Chicago and DC have the strictest gun control laws, and also the highest crime rates.

People kill with guns, and without. The main problem is not with what the person kills (and hand guns are responsible for more homicides than assault rifles, while murderers who kill silently, without guns (like with gas or fertilizer), are responsible for more murders than murders involving guns are), but the society in which the will to kill is not inhibited by a moral backbone. Not only does it not work to stave away crime, but it's a lazier method that does not attack the main problem.


----------



## Roman (Jan 31, 2013)

Blue said:


> Murder rates in the US are down drastically for the 11th or 12th year in a row, actually.
> 
> Gun deaths still up.
> 
> Also while I happen to agree with Congresswoman Giffords, her having been shot is not a good reason to agree with her.



, and gun-related homicides are actually rising as a percentage of total murder. Just a cursive look at  will show you as much. Between at least 2008 and 2011, gun-related murders (ALL GUNS) constitute roughly 70% of all homicides.



Mael said:


> He's full of shit.  Gun access makes murder a helluva lot easier.  Also, really dude don't take him seriously.  Check him out and you'll see why.
> 
> Also, moral decay my ass.  Yes shame has been reduced drastically but it hasn't led to an increase in murder.  Moral decay can be decried by the Taliban but look at what they do in the mean in the name of morality.







And yes, I see no such moral decay either in all honesty. All it's been is more reportage on tragic events that make it look like we're heading toward a state of destitution.


----------



## Blue (Jan 31, 2013)

Freedan said:


> , and gun-related homicides are actually rising as a percentage of total murder. Just a cursive look at  will show you as much. Between at least 2008 and 2011, gun-related murders (ALL GUNS) constitute roughly 70% of all homicides.



1. 24000 in 1993 down to 14000 in 2011 is a GIGANTIC drop. Especially considering the US added 70 million more people since then. Stop trying to bullshit, especially since
2. I'm on your side. I'm just saying murder - "moral decay" - isn't the fuckin' problem.


----------



## Roman (Jan 31, 2013)

Blue said:


> 1. 24000 in 1993 down to 14000 in 2011 is a GIGANTIC drop. Especially considering the US added 70 million more people since then. Stop trying to bullshit, especially since



That's 20 years, not 11 or 12


----------



## Blue (Jan 31, 2013)

Also no, learn the difference between murder and homicide.


----------



## Blue (Jan 31, 2013)

Freedan said:


> That's 20 years, not 11 or 12


----------



## Roman (Jan 31, 2013)

Blue said:


> Also no, learn the difference between murder and homicide.



Fine, allow me to rephrase then.



Freedan said:


> , and gun-related *murders* are actually rising as a percentage of total *murder*. Just a cursive look at  will show you as much. Between at least 2008 and 2011, gun-related murders (ALL GUNS) constitute roughly 70% of all *murders*.



Happy?


----------



## Jυstin (Jan 31, 2013)

I meant to say homicide, but I really meant unlawful killings (which is the focus), which both murder and homicide are. Murder mainly differs in that it lacks self-defense or other extenuating circumstances that are recognized by the law.

Edit: Oh never mind. You were talking to Free


----------



## Blue (Jan 31, 2013)

While the vast majority of homicides are unlawful (including suicide) some are not, such as self-defense killings.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Jan 31, 2013)

Justin is right. There's some big moral decay in America, its called the NRA and the Gun Culture.


----------



## Roman (Jan 31, 2013)

Elim Rawne said:


> Justin is right. There's some big moral decay in America, its called the NRA and the Gun Culture.


----------



## Mael (Jan 31, 2013)

Is that Hotline Miami?

EDIT: Yes it is.

And Justin would disagree with you Elim.


----------



## Jυstin (Jan 31, 2013)

Blue said:


> While the vast majority of homicides are unlawful (including suicide) some are not, such as self-defense killings.



Ah yes. That's what I meant. Those are those extenuating circumstances recognized by the law, like the act of protecting one's self.



Elim Rawne said:


> Justin is right. There's some big moral decay in America, its called the NRA and the Gun Culture.



If only you were actually talking about morality itself, and not merely a means with which to commit immoral acts of any kind, or to defend against them.


----------



## Bender (Jan 31, 2013)

Love this bit of news 



*Polls Show Nearly 100 Percent Support For Background Checks*



> WASHINGTON -- More than nine in 10 voters in Virginia, New Jersey and Pennsylvania support some form of background check on gun buyers, according to three separate Quinnipiac polls taken during the month of January, with roughly equal support among gun owners and all voters.
> 
> Overwhelming majorities of voters -- 92 percent in Virginia and 95 percent in New Jersey -- favor requiring background checks on people buying firearms at gun shows, Quinnipiac found, with support for the proposal also topping 90 percent among gun owners.
> 
> ...





Pepe Le Pew facepalming is just awesome and hilarious 

Sucks for you dickhead.


----------



## Velocity (Jan 31, 2013)

Jυstin said:


> A while ago, gun access was all over, but we did not have the mass shootings we have had recently. Common sense dictates gun access is not the problem. This is painfully obvious.



We've *always* had mass shootings... Even if we take only the recorded stuff, which obviously would never cover all the mass shootings that have occurred since firearms became available, there have been mass shootings since the late 19th century... All over the world... Europe, Asia and the Americas. Mass shootings have been happening for well over a century and people who try to divert the problem away from the availability of guns are just ensuring that this sort of thing will continue. Yeah, guns aren't the only problem but to act like they're not a contributing factor is ridiculous...

There will always be killers, but I don't see why we should be making it easy for them.


----------



## Jυstin (Jan 31, 2013)

Velocity said:


> We've *always* had mass shootings... Even if we take only the recorded stuff, which obviously would never cover all the mass shootings that have occurred since firearms became available, there have been mass shootings since the late 19th century... All over the world... Europe, Asia and the Americas. Mass shootings have been happening for well over a century and people who try to divert the problem away from the availability of guns are just ensuring that this sort of thing will continue. Yeah, guns aren't the only problem but to act like they're not a contributing factor is ridiculous...
> 
> There will always be killers, but I don't see why we should be making it easy for them.



I'm only talking history of the U.S.. I'm not sure where you're pulling your information from, but the earliest *shooting* I've found occurred in 1966 (not bombings, which have occurred earlier than 1938). More to the point, these shootings are pretty spaced out. They've experienced a monstrous increase in frequency from 2005 onward. The issue is not gun availability, or the frequency would have been monstrous in the past, with it dying down towards our current time.

Yeah, guns can be used to kill people, but they're not a contributing factor to human death. It's people with the intent to kill that do that. Killers who do so silently, using more subtle methods, kill far more than people who commit mass shootings. A lot of these murderers kill well over 100, 200, of even 300 victims before they're caught. It's PEOPLE who are the problem, more accurately immoral people who don't quite grasp the importance of human life.

Weird enough, they're targeting assault rifles, which contribute far less to gun-related murders than common handguns do, factually speaking. These rifles are actually protected under the 2nd Amendment. In our own laws, United States vs. Miller, 309 U.S. 174 (1939) - a Supreme Court case - it was made clear that the type of firearms protected by the Second Amendment were those specifically useful and common for military use in defense of the state. I feel the need to remind that the state is *not* the government. The state is the *people*.

You can also take into account how effective these regulations have been. As I said, D.C. and Chicago have the strictest gun regulations, and (not surprisingly) the highest crime and murder rates in the U.S., while Sweden (or was it Switzerland, or both?) had the most lenient stance regarding guns, and also the lowest crime rates. These laws, which have similarly not kept illegal immigration or the smuggling of drugs off of the streets, only make such firearms inaccessible to those who will not break the law in order to obtain them. Criminals, especially those planning to break the law against murder, do not fall under such demographic. They have no effect on the moral compass of someone who is not in compliance with the law - criminals.

In any case, I think it's moot at this point. If my information is further accurate, the rulings in the case against gun accessibility has ruled in favor of the Second Amendment right. I think we should pour our focus into finding the reasons behind, and the prevention of, killer intent and lack of value for human life among those who would try to take it, by *ANY* means.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Jan 31, 2013)

Jυstin said:


> I'm only talking history of the U.S.. I'm not sure where you're pulling your information from, but the earliest *shooting* I've found occurred in 1966 (not bombings, which have occurred earlier than 1938).


Quick bit of wiki magic gives us "," March 1st, 1889.  Killed 7-8 with a Winchester rifle.


----------



## Blue (Jan 31, 2013)

EvilMoogle said:


> Quick bit of wiki magic gives us "," March 1st, 1889.  Killed 7-8 with a Winchester rifle.



Of course it's Florida...


----------



## makeoutparadise (Jan 31, 2013)

*Extra extra read all about it Another school shooting one student shot*


> A 14-year-old student was wounded after being shot in the head at a middle school Thursday, and a suspect was taken into custody, authorities said. No other students were hurt.
> 
> Police swarmed Price Middle School just south of downtown Atlanta after reports of the shooting at 1:50 p.m., while a crowd of anxious parents gathered in the streets, awaiting word on their children. Students were being kept at the locked-down school some two hours after the shooting but television footage showed some of them being dismissed.
> 
> ...


----------



## Sunuvmann (Jan 31, 2013)

> A 14-year-old student was wounded *after being shot in the head* at a middle school Thursday, and a suspect was taken into custody, authorities said. No other students were hurt.
> 
> Police swarmed Price Middle School just south of downtown Atlanta after reports of the shooting at 1:50 p.m., while a crowd of anxious parents gathered in the streets, awaiting word on their children. Students were being kept at the locked-down school some two hours after the shooting but television footage showed some of them being dismissed.
> 
> Atlanta police spokesman Carlos Campos said *the wounded boy was taken "alert, conscious and breathing" to Grady Hospital.*


Jeez @____@


----------



## Cyphon (Jan 31, 2013)

Bender said:


> Love this bit of news
> 
> Pepe Le Pew facepalming is just awesome and hilarious
> 
> Sucks for you dickhead.



You act like you have just won some major battle 

This isn't even really news. Everyone knows there is strong support for different laws than we have now but that doesn't really impact the guys overall point. 

And that is that criminals are not going to openly submit to background checks anyway. So it doesn't matter how strict they are.

I myself have no problem with deeper background checks but I also agree with Mr. NRA. It isn't going to do much. The focus should be elsewhere.


----------



## Sunuvmann (Jan 31, 2013)

> And that is that criminals are not going to openly submit to background checks anyway. So it doesn't matter how strict they are.


[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yy8MUnlT9Oo[/YOUTUBE]

The point of background checks is like requiring IDs to buy liquor. Its not supposed to catch people, its to put up a barrier to entry to make it more difficult for criminals and discourage it.

Say you're an ex-felon and want to buy a gun. Currently, if you want one you could just go to the local gun show and buy it. With universal background checks? Oh hey, guess I can't buy one there, now I have to take much harder methods like finding someone with a clean record to buy it (which prevention of Straw Purchasing will block) or find a more black market means.

And maybe along the way it'd be too big a hassle/too expensive and then they'll decide against it.

Just like requiring IDs may not prevent someone from getting liquor if they really want to, it may make it sufficiently difficult for those who you don't want to buy that it'd lessen the behavior.


----------



## Cyphon (Jan 31, 2013)

Sunuvmann said:


> [YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yy8MUnlT9Oo[/YOUTUBE]



You are the first person to present yourself with a youtube vid before actually posting. How creative of you 



> And maybe along the way it'd be too big a hassle/too expensive and then they'll decide against it.
> 
> Just like requiring IDs may not prevent someone from getting liquor if they really want to, it may make it sufficiently difficult that it'd lessen the behavior.



Highly unlikely though. It is a battle won, sure. But a very small battle that isn't going to do anything to curb the major incidents and very little to curb smaller incidents. 

Like I said, I am fine with the background checks but it is such an insignificant battle when considering the bigger picture.


----------



## Enclave (Jan 31, 2013)

Cyphon said:


> Highly unlikely though. It is a battle won, sure. But a very small battle that isn't going to do anything to curb the major incidents and very little to curb smaller incidents.
> 
> Like I said, I am fine with the background checks but it is such an insignificant battle when considering the bigger picture.



Highly unlikely?  Seems to work fairly well in other countries.


----------



## Cyphon (Jan 31, 2013)

Enclave said:


> Highly unlikely?  Seems to work fairly well in other countries.



We aren't other countries. Completely different mentalities and views as well as far more guns already available and still available regardless of actions taken.


----------



## Enclave (Jan 31, 2013)

Cyphon said:


> We aren't other countries. Completely different mentalities and views as well as far more guns already available and still available regardless of actions taken.



So your claim is Americans are fucking insane psychopathic murderers and are beyond help?

You've convinced me, guns should be banned outright in your country.


Face it, you lower the amount of guns out there and it will directly correlate to a reduction in gun crime.  It's just how it works.  Your culture has shit all to do with it.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Jan 31, 2013)

True, other countries don't have the NRA that openly advocate sedition and violence against everyone that is not them. Tribalist cunts


----------



## Cyphon (Jan 31, 2013)

Enclave said:


> So your claim is Americans are fucking insane psychopathic murderers and are beyond help?



Not all of them. 

But to be blunt our mentality about these things is so far gone that it likely is beyond any reasonable help. 



> You've convinced me, guns should be banned outright in your country.



If your goal is making a change you are right. Which is my point. Broadening background checks is going to do very little if anything at all. 

If we are talking about the current reason for this push (the major tragedies) I don't think it will do anything at all.

If we are talking about everything else (daily shootings and such) it may do a little there. 



> Face it, you lower the amount of guns out there and it will directly correlate to a reduction in gun crime.  It's just how it works.  Your culture has shit all to do with it.



You would have to be able to significantly lower the amount of guns out there and this measure won't accomplish that.


----------



## Enclave (Jan 31, 2013)

Ah, I see, you're one of those people who seem to think that if something won't 100% solve the solution that you shouldn't bother at all.  You of course realise how idiotic that line of thinking is right?


----------



## Cyphon (Jan 31, 2013)

Enclave said:


> Ah, I see, you're one of those people who seem to think that if something won't 100% solve the solution that you shouldn't bother at all.  You of course realise how idiotic that line of thinking is right?



Ah I see. You're one of those of the Cafe with poor reading comprehension. As I have said multiple times we should be focused on things with a bigger benefit. So we should bother, but with a plan that will actual make a difference.


----------



## Bender (Jan 31, 2013)

Cyphon said:


> You are the first person to present yourself with a youtube vid before actually posting. How creative of you




Why are you using logic that kisses the buttflaps of absolutely idiots like Pepe le Pew who champion the idiocy the of society? You want to do so cool. Just do it on a Faux News forums. Not here where we prefer sensibility.


----------



## drache (Jan 31, 2013)

at the idea that 'moral decay' is destroying america, seems like someone has been to one too many religious nutjob events


And guys you're wasting your time with Cyp, even if you win he's just going to throw a hissy fight and then put you on ignore. after which he'll go back to spewing his bullshit


----------



## Bender (Jan 31, 2013)

@Drache

So basically he's going to fuck around with us with nonsensical logic like Forlong did when he was still around.


----------



## Cyphon (Jan 31, 2013)

Bender said:


> Why are you using logic that kisses the buttflaps of absolutely idiots like Pepe le Pew who champion the idiocy the of society?



Huh?



> You want to do so cool. Just do it on a Faux News forums. Not here where *we prefer sensibility*.



Holy hell the irony is just too much 

Seriously? YOU are saying that? 



drache said:


> And guys you're wasting your time with Cyp, even if you win he's just going to throw a hissy fight and then put you on ignore. after which he'll go back to spewing his bullshit



Yes, because I have a history of throwing hissy fits. I guess pointing out irony and ignorance is whining now. 

And I hope you know there is no "winning" in opinion sharing.


----------



## drache (Jan 31, 2013)

Bender said:


> @Drache
> 
> So basically he's going to fuck around with us with nonsensical logic like Forlong did when he was still around.


 
pretty much



Cyphon said:


> Yes, because I have a history of throwing hissy fits. I guess pointing out irony and ignorance is whining now.
> 
> And I hope you know there is no "winning" in opinion sharing.


 
actually you do and you're only pointing out your own ignorance


----------



## neodragzero (Jan 31, 2013)

Just in case anyone here is still making the odd "it protects us from tyranny" argument for the 2nd Amendment:


----------



## Mael (Jan 31, 2013)

neodragzero said:


> Just in case anyone here is still making the odd "it protects us from tyranny" argument for the 2nd Amendment:



Moron Labe.


----------



## Enclave (Jan 31, 2013)

Cyphon said:


> Ah I see. You're one of those of the Cafe with poor reading comprehension. As I have said multiple times we should be focused on things with a bigger benefit. So we should bother, but with a plan that will actual make a difference.



Point out my poor reading comprehension please.  Here, I'll post the part where you gave the implication that it's pointless to pass this measure since it won't fix the problem.  After all while an assault weapon ban would not fix the problem it WOULD reduce the number of guns out there.  Obviously it won't be enough to fix the problem but it's a start.



Cyphon said:


> You would have to be able to significantly lower the amount of guns out there and this measure won't accomplish that.



So yeah, I'm not seeing where my poor reading comprehension is, please point it out.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Jan 31, 2013)




----------



## Cyphon (Jan 31, 2013)

Enclave said:


> So yeah, I'm not seeing where my poor reading comprehension is, please point it out.



You said this:



Enclave said:


> Ah, I see, you're one of those people who seem to think that if something won't 100% solve the solution that you shouldn't bother at all.  You of course realise how idiotic that line of thinking is right?



Nowhere did I say you shouldn't do it. I said there are better options to consider and that it would be an insignificant aid in the overall battle. 



Cyphon said:


> Highly unlikely though. It is a battle won, sure. But a very small battle that isn't going to do anything to curb the major incidents and very little to curb smaller incidents.
> 
> Like I said, I am fine with the background checks but it is such an insignificant battle when considering the bigger picture.



You took that, turned it into something else and called me an idiot for thinking thoughts you made up. 

To be fair to you though I don't blame you. The Cafe seems to do that to a lot of posters because of everyone kind of conforming to the same line of reasoning for just about everything. When a new point of view pops up it is so shocking that a lot of you can't take it all on until I explain it further.


----------



## Enclave (Jan 31, 2013)

The trend I see is red states are full of psychopaths while blue states aren't.

The answer is obvious, all Republicans need to have their guns taken away and all the Democrates need to be given all those guns to protect themselves from the insane conservatives.

The implication was clear Cyphon, ESPECIALLY since you didn't mention any of these magical solutions that would work so much better than taking away peoples guns.

Or what?  Are you one of those people who belives arming school teachers is the way to go?  If so I'll put you on ignore toot sweet so please, let me know your solution.


----------



## Bazu'aal (Jan 31, 2013)

It's all Camden and Newark for NJ


----------



## Cyphon (Jan 31, 2013)

Enclave said:


> The implication was clear Cyphon



Yes. It was clear I am fine with those policies. I just said they wouldn't do much and you didn't get that. Thus why I questioned your reading comprehension. 



> Or what?  Are you one of those people who belives arming school teachers is the way to go?  If so I'll put you on ignore toot sweet so please, let me know your solution.



I believe arming teachers is a foolish decision. Teachers should be focused on teaching and passing on knowledge, not weapons training and that sort of thing. For that matter, giving guns to teachers gives the kids access to even more weapons should they manage to get their hands on it. That is one problem you don't want.

I am however, for armed guards or some such at schools if the schools decide they want it. And obviously I don't mean just some mall cop off the street.


----------



## Roman (Feb 1, 2013)

Mael said:


> Moron Labe.



Why is it that whenever you make a post I want to rep, I cannot? First, I needed to spread love. Now I'm 24'd 



Enclave said:


> The trend I see is red states are full of psychopaths while blue states aren't.
> 
> The answer is obvious, all Republicans need to have their guns taken away and all the Democrates need to be given all those guns to protect themselves from the insane conservatives.



Now let's not jump to conclusions here. I think the more obvious trend is states with more gun control has lower gun death rates. Tho the chart doesn't show it, I wager those states also sport lower total murder rates.

However, democrat states still shouldn't be given guns instead of red states because:

1. Regulations would still apply. Even if there is a greater supply of guns, how would people acquire them?

2. It wouldn't serve any beneficial purpose other than maybe boost the gun industry in those states. However, it's an industry that I believe desperately needs to be shrunk anyways.


----------



## Pilaf (Feb 1, 2013)




----------



## Enclave (Feb 1, 2013)

Freedan?  I was being sarcastic.


----------



## Mael (Feb 1, 2013)

Guys should check out Vermont and New Hampshire though.  Lax gun laws yet little violence.  Granted there are other factors to go along with it...


----------



## Blue (Feb 1, 2013)

Enclave said:


> Freedan?  I was being sarcastic.



This is why half the time the cafe changes my opinion negatively. I'm an anti-gun radical but I don't want to be seen with some of these people.

Same with abortion rights


----------



## Sunuvmann (Feb 1, 2013)

Mael said:


> Guys should check out Vermont and New Hampshire though.  Lax gun laws yet little violence.  Granted there are other factors to go along with it...


That's because mostly white people and not redneck white people at that. 


Blue said:


> This is why half the time the cafe changes my opinion negatively. I'm an anti-gun radical but I don't want to be seen with some of these people.
> 
> Same with abortion rights


I think it's just you have a contrarian personality dood.


----------



## Mael (Feb 1, 2013)

Sunuvmann said:


> That's because mostly white people and not redneck white people at that.



DATS WACIST.


----------



## Sunuvmann (Feb 1, 2013)

A little bit yeah. But still true!

The primary demographics of that area are older hippies, former New Yorkers and old money. None of which has had much use or cultural desire for guns.


----------



## Mael (Feb 1, 2013)

Sunuvmann said:


> A little bit yeah. But still true!
> 
> The primary demographics of that area are older hippies, former New Yorkers and old money. None of which has had much use or cultural desire for guns.



Another hidden irony is that New Hampshire is actually a very Republican state, but just happens to be a responsible Republican state for the MOST part.


----------



## Linkdarkside (Feb 3, 2013)

*Reports: Ex-SEAL/author fatally shot on gun range*



> GLEN ROSE, Texas (AP) ? Former Navy SEAL and "American Sniper" author Chris Kyle was fatally shot along with another man Saturday on a Texas gun range, a sheriff told local newspapers.
> 
> Erath County Sheriff Tommy Bryant said Kyle, 38, and a second man were found dead at Rough Creek Lodge's shooting range west of Glen Rose, according to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram and Stephenville Empire-Tribune. Glen Rose is about 50 miles southwest of Fort Worth.
> 
> ...



http://news.yahoo.com/reports-ex-seal-author-fatally-shot-gun-range-072047785.html


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 3, 2013)

Blue said:


> This is why half the time the cafe changes my opinion negatively. I'm an anti-gun radical but I don't want to be seen with some of these people.
> 
> Same with abortion rights



I'm sure the feeling is mutual.


----------



## neodragzero (Feb 3, 2013)




----------



## Mael (Feb 3, 2013)

I think there may be a flurry in Hell now.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 3, 2013)

Extreme cold can give the same sensation as burning.


----------



## neodragzero (Feb 3, 2013)

> Why the change? The NRA is making its new case based on shaky facts. Keene told the Huffington Post that less than 1 percent of criminals get their weapons at gun shows. Though research on gun violence has been restricted by Congress following NRA lobbying, two dated studies indicate that's not true. One, from the 1990s, finds that 40 percent of guns were bought at gun shows. Another, from the late 1980s, found that 80 percent of criminals bought their guns on the secondary market.
> 
> What this tells us is that contrary to two decades of warnings to its supporters of a ongoing war to dismantle the Second Amendment, the NRA has succeeded in moving the gun debate in its direction. So much so that it is now fighting the positions it held less than 15 years ago.


----------



## corsair (Feb 3, 2013)

It is almost as good as when one of them asked if that was "just calculation you make as a republican to make yourself feel better".


----------



## Ippy (Feb 3, 2013)

The places with the most gun deaths are also the places where people own the most guns?

Surely you jest!


----------



## Ben Tennyson (Feb 3, 2013)

*Paul Krugman: 'NRA Is Now Revealed as an Insane Organization'*


> Notable comments made during the powerhouse roundtable Sunday on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" are below. Guests included ABC News political analyst Matthew Dowd; Univision anchor Jorge Ramos; Nobel Prize-winning economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman; former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina; and Republican Rep. Lou Barletta of Pennsylvania.
> 
> Krugman weighs in on the NRA
> 
> ...



http://news.yahoo.com/paul-krugman-...rganization-181006917--abc-news-politics.html


----------



## Ippy (Feb 3, 2013)

> countries that have effective gun control have a lot fewer incidents.


You don't say....


----------



## Bear Walken (Feb 3, 2013)

Linkdarkside said:


> http://news.yahoo.com/reports-ex-seal-author-fatally-shot-gun-range-072047785.html



The gun range therapy was not the best way to help out someone suffering from PTSD. 

R.I.P SEAL.


----------



## Linkdarkside (Feb 3, 2013)

*Texas man arraigned on murder charges in shooting of "American Sniper"*



> (Reuters) - The man accused of gunning down former U.S. Navy SEAL Chris Kyle, a prominent military sniper, and a second man at a Texas shooting range has been arraigned on two counts of capital murder, the Texas Department of Public Safety said on Sunday.
> 
> Eddie Ray Routh, 25, was accused of killing Kyle, 38, and Chad Littlefield, 35, a neighbor of Kyle, on Saturday afternoon at the Rough Creek Lodge, about 50 miles southwest of Fort Worth, the department said.
> 
> ...



http://news.yahoo.com/author-american-sniper-chris-kyle-shot-death-reports-060103082.html


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Feb 3, 2013)

> There was a deadly shooting Friday outside of Martin Luther King, Junior High School on Detroit's east side.
> 
> Police sources say two armed males tried to rob a coach leaving the school.  The coach, who has a concealed pistol license, fired shots killing one of the individuals and critically wounding the other.
> 
> ...


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 3, 2013)

What is the intent for posting this? Trying to prove a point and failing to do so?


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Feb 3, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> What is the intent for posting this? Trying to prove a point and failing to do so?



How is people dying due to firearms violence not a tragedy in and of itself?


----------



## Roman (Feb 4, 2013)

From linkdarkside's story:



> "Part of this process involved taking these veterans to the range," said the posting on SOFREP.com.



Sorry, but that kind of shock treatment for Marines suffering with PTSD isn't the right way to deal with their issues, especially when you don't know how any individual will react to PTSD triggers.



The Space Cowboy said:


> How is people dying due to firearms violence not a tragedy in and of itself?



Well, considering your stance on guns, it's not too hard to conclude you might be posting the story to showcase how people need guns to defend themselves. Apologies for any misunderstandings but I just wanted to put that out there.


----------



## Petes12 (Feb 4, 2013)

ron paul in trouble for an insensitive tweet: 

the funny thing is this is the first time I've ever agreed with him


----------



## Mael (Feb 4, 2013)

> Chris Kyle's death seems to confirm that "he who lives by the sword dies by the sword." Treating PTSD at a firing range doesn't make sense



Holy shit I'll say...but then again stating the obvious isn't that remarkable...I guess for him though it may be.


----------



## Petes12 (Feb 4, 2013)

it is remarkable for him, and oddly its something I havent seen anyone point out, how much at fault the guy is for his own death


----------



## Linkdarkside (Feb 4, 2013)

*Alabama hostage standoff ends with child safe, gunman dead*



> (Reuters) - A gunman who held a five-year-old boy hostage in an underground bunker in rural Alabama for nearly a week was killed on Monday and the child was plucked to safety without injury, law enforcement officials said.
> 
> FBI agents entered the bunker to rescue the child after fearing that he was in "imminent danger," said Steve Richardson, special agent in charge in Mobile.
> 
> ...



http://news.yahoo.com/alabama-town-gathers-bury-bus-driver-slain-hostage-011349756.html


----------



## Petes12 (Feb 4, 2013)

good riddance


----------



## neodragzero (Feb 5, 2013)

I especially find this part interesting, in response to the lazy "if you don't have a gun, how about a knife and so on" argument:



> Won't criminals kill with other weapons if they don't have guns?
> 
> The crux of this question is whether most homicides are planned, or whether killers more often confront their victims with no clear intention. In the second case, adding a gun could result in a fatal shooting that would otherwise have been avoided.
> 
> ...


----------



## Mael (Feb 5, 2013)

*Pistol-packing pupils becoming an everyday occurrence*



> By M. Alex Johnson, staff writer, NBC News
> 
> The case of a Virginia second-grader caught with a gun on his school bus this week may be shocking but it's by no means uncommon.
> 
> ...





Clearly these kids are defending their education from Obama.



> The boy told police he carried the gun for his own protection.
> 
> "If you are 10 years old, the only protection you need is to go tell an adult," Massey told NBC station WDIV of Detroit.



Though I find this also very fucking naive.  It's one of the reasons we have this shit in the first place...ineffective anti-bully measures.


----------



## Linkdarkside (Feb 7, 2013)

*Calif. seeks to adopt nation's toughest gun laws*



> SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) ? Weeks after New York enacted the nation's toughest gun laws, California lawmakers said Thursday they want their state to do even more in response to recent mass shootings, particularly the Connecticut school massacre.
> 
> Democrats who control the state Legislature revealed 10 proposals that they said would make California the most restrictive state for possessing firearms.
> 
> ...



http://news.yahoo.com/calif-seeks-adopt-nations-toughest-gun-laws-220030130.html


----------



## Linkdarkside (Feb 11, 2013)

*4 wounded in shooting during Mardi Gras revelry*


> NEW ORLEANS (AP) ? Investigators worked early Monday to find suspects in a weekend shooting that wounded four on Bourbon Street during the countdown to Mardi Gras, while many revelers went on with their partying despite the violence.
> 
> In a video taken by a witness Saturday night and released the next day, the shootings are preceded by footage of people standing shoulder to shoulder in New Orleans' famed tourist district, with some holding green plastic cups and wearing gaudy hats or masks. A section of the frame highlighted by police shows people jostling and speaking with angry expressions.
> 
> ...



http://news.yahoo.com/4-wounded-shooting-during-mardi-gras-revelry-093415018.html


----------



## Linkdarkside (Feb 11, 2013)

*Suspected courthouse shooter, wife dead in Del.*



> WILMINGTON, Del. (AP) ? The mayor of Wilmington, Del., says a man suspected of killing his wife and wounding two others at the New Castle County Courthouse is dead.
> 
> Wilmington Mayor Dennis Williams said Monday in a telephone interview that the shooter was killed by police. Williams says he was told the man shot and killed his wife and wounded two other people about 8:10 a.m. Monday. Williams says the couple were estranged.
> 
> ...




http://news.yahoo.com/suspected-courthouse-shooter-wife-dead-del-145211379.html


----------



## Bender (Feb 18, 2013)

*TEEN SHOT DEAD HOURS AFTER SISTER SAT AT OBAMA GUN SPEECH*



> CHICAGO — An 18-year-old Chicago woman was killed the same day her sister had sat on the stage behind President Barack Obama, listening to him push for gun control legislation.
> 
> Janay Mcfarlane was shot once in the head around 11:30 p.m. Friday in North Chicago, Lake County Coroner Thomas Rudd told the Chicago Sun-Times (). Mcfarlane, a mother of a 3-month-old boy, was in the Chicago suburb visiting friends and family.
> 
> ...





Me after hearing this= abso-fucking-lutely livid.

To quote "The Wire" character Carcetti: "Did someone not get the message?"


----------



## very bored (Feb 19, 2013)

*Missouri Legislator Wants To Make It A Felony To Propose Gun Control Legislation  Rea*



> A Congressman in Missouri is taking a dramatic stand against gun control.
> A state representative has proposed a bill that would make it a class D felony for any member of the General Assembly to propose legislation "that further restricts an individual's right to bear arms."
> The bill was sponsored by Republican Rep. Mike Leara.
> BuzzFeed's Rebecca Berg was the first to bring Missouri's proposed legislation to our attention.
> ...



Source
I never thought they'd have the nerve to try this


----------



## Mael (Feb 19, 2013)

Strong butthurt is strong.


----------



## Hand Banana (Feb 19, 2013)

Meh, it's just a bill. You can propose a bill to make consensual sex illegal.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Feb 19, 2013)

This sounds like one of those "unintended consequence" things.  Fast forward 3 years:

Republican proposes "tough new illegal immigration standards."  Illegal immigrant points out that if he is deported that will restrict his freedom to bare arms and jails the congressman.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 19, 2013)

Wouldn't that be infringing on the freedom of expression?


----------

