- 6,051
- 6,036
I don't think I fully understand. You're arguing that we're inherently aggressive, yet you want us to be armed to the teeth as well? What am I missing here?
Gun control
- Thread starter Saladus
- Start date
-
Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!
Go here and give us your nominations!Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
You added "armed to the teeth", which I didn't state. I said, armed with a modern weapon. If you have a problem with that, then your understanding of both history and psychology is woefully lacking.
People have always been arming themselves.
The UK figure also includes suicide rates with guns. If you take out suicides, then instead of the figures being 10.2 to .25 (40 times more gun deaths), it becomes 3.6 to .04 (90 times more gun deaths per 100k). So thanks for revealing an even more disturbing trend.
I think its reasonable to expect gun owners to justify the need given it is such a controversial issue with some very visible downsides (such as the recent massacre).
Without regulation, who gets to decide what a "modern weapon" is? weapons of mass destruction are pretty modern, but i hope you aren't suggesting that the 2nd amendment was written with the mind the founding fathers wanted a nuke in every home. Thats an extreme example, but the point is the same. When modern = kill more better/faster, it begs the question.
Loser Araysar
Chief Russia Reporter. Stock Pals CEO. Head of AI.
- 80,156
- 160,366
yes, of course they intended for every home to have a nuclear weapon.
that is the logical extension of that argument.
a nuke in every basement, a tank in every driveway.
or did they mean that no one is allowed is allowed to own more than a horn of powder and a musket in 2012?
so hard to define "modern"
that is the logical extension of that argument.
a nuke in every basement, a tank in every driveway.
or did they mean that no one is allowed is allowed to own more than a horn of powder and a musket in 2012?
so hard to define "modern"
if you are a brain dead fucking idiot, that is
Loser Araysar
Chief Russia Reporter. Stock Pals CEO. Head of AI.
- 80,156
- 160,366
then by the same token you should justify your need for free speech, for freedom of religion, for habeas corpus, for privacy in your home and your papers - and all the other rights enumerated in the bill of rights along with your right to own a gun.
we get it, you hate guns. if you want to argue against them at least move on to the "advanced" talking points, and try to refrain from sounding so stupid, uneducated and melodramatic about them.
we already saw
should citizens own nuclear weapons too?
wont anyone please think of the children?
and a handful of other amateur red herrings straight outta 9th grade debate team practice.
No, your argument is extremely disingenuous. Everyone but lawyers and polititians know the difference between a modern weapon and a nuclear weapon. Your assertion that modern weapons = nukes is daft and idiotic.
I'll make this simple for you: Every man and woman should have the right to arm themselves with a modern weapon. Weapon = small caliber sidearm, rifle or shotgun.
Loser Araysar
Chief Russia Reporter. Stock Pals CEO. Head of AI.
- 80,156
- 160,366
small side caliber sidearm basically relegates you to something like a .32 or a .22, the only thing that guarantees you'll be able to defend yourself from is squirrels and small dogs.
a .40 or a .45 is the normal caliber for a sidearm these days, and those are in the upper range for handgun calibers.
Loser Araysar
Chief Russia Reporter. Stock Pals CEO. Head of AI.
- 80,156
- 160,366
Chicago tribune on "assault rifles". That's actually a sling swivel they have circled...for mounting a sling to carry your rifle.
lol, thats insane
how do they think a grenade launcher is supposed to attach to that?
- 6,051
- 6,036
First of all, It's a figure of speech. I don't mean possessing so many weapons that they're drowning in them. I mean armed with the latest in weaponry, which you suggested by using the word "modern". Also, you seem to be suggesting that because I don't understand the apparent need to arm myself with modern weaponry, I have an issue understanding history/psychology. In point of fact, no, I just don't agree with you. You seem to have a problem understanding that my viewpoint doesn't have to match your viewpoint. I don't agree thateveryoneshould be permitted to arm themselves with anything. Some people have absolutely no business owning a firearm as they're more likely (due to their aggressive nature, for example) to become a threat to innocents than they are to save anyone, including themselves. Who defines who these people are? Probably the same people that define what weapons are appropriate in the first place, and that scares me a fair amount, since a lot of people seem to believe that it's okay for Joe Average to walk around with a semi-automatic weapon on his back.
Yes, people have always been arming themselves. I'm wondering how, in your mind, the escalation works here, though. If every responsible gun/home owner were to go out and arm themselves with (let's just say) an AR-15, since that's the current pariah of weaponry, what would the response be from those that wish to do those people harm? I'm not a gun afficionado, so I don't honestly know. I'm curious as to why the average homeowner would ever need such a thing, or any gun for that matter, because I live in a place where it's mostly unheard of.
Big Phoenix
Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
- 46,401
- 98,653
Nah son, small caliber in military terms is pretty much anything under .50cal.
Loser Araysar
Chief Russia Reporter. Stock Pals CEO. Head of AI.
- 80,156
- 160,366
1. since when is ar-15 considered an escalation?
2. to protect themselves, their homestead and their country
3. of course you live in such a place, under the blanket of security that guns have provided for you.
Loser Araysar
Chief Russia Reporter. Stock Pals CEO. Head of AI.
- 80,156
- 160,366
you're conflating small arms and small caliber here.
while its true that small arms is anything under .50 cal
that does not mean that a .45 would be considered a small caliber handgun which was implied under your phrasing of "small caliber sidearm, rifle or shotgun."
Lithose
Buzzfeed Editor
- 25,946
- 113,036
The actual murder rate in the UK is about 30% of the U.S. (I forget the exact amount), but once again, distorting numbers to attempt to make an argument. Really, you can just go ahead and make non-bullshit arguments. The "three times as many" figure is still a powerful figure. I have no idea why you try to twist bullshit to make your numbers appear larger.
Or are you saying that death by a hammer is less gruesome than death by a gun? Because otherwise, I can't imagine why you'd jump through these hoops.
Also, once more--The main difference in actual murder rates stem more from our lack of social services and the situation our cities are in, in terms of poverty vs population density. But that's, you know, actually complicated. And we wouldn't want to confuse people by explaining real problems, instead we'll start another useless crusade that will further sap the economy and destroy civic society. Got to get all those victimless criminals in prison! Like those damn crack users or pot smokers.
and queue infantile kneejerk "ITS IN THE BILLZ OF RIGHTS SO THERE" response. Show me where in the bill of rights it states that citizens have the right to own advanced military grade weaponry with 100 bullet magazines.
- 6,051
- 6,036
Uh, no, I live in a country where pretty much no one is armed, certainly not to protect their home anyway, and we do just fine. If you want to protect your country up here, you enlist.
You're telling me that an AR-15 isn't considered escalation from, say, your average handgun?