Gun control

  • 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!
JVIRUS

JVIRUS

Golden Knight of the Realm
430
170
PosterOfStuff_sl said:
We don't live in some utopian society where everyone makes well informed decisions based on a range of unbiased information. And we certainly don't live in a society that has 100% responsible gun ownership.

The above seems to be the basis of most of the pro gun posts.

And none of these are going to be fixed very soon, so it is totally pointless introducing arguments about fixing society instead of looking at gun control.

You can quote homicide facts and figures all you want as well, but at the end of the day the debate is fuelled by nut jobs getting their hands on guns and killing people, and that is what will drive further gun legislation as well.

Nobody really cares about homicide rates as much as they care when they see crying parents outside a school mourning the loss of a child. That is just how it is.

Also, I don't have an issue with people owning guns, but there has to be infrastructure around it to ensure you are responsible with them and that you own a realistic amount of guns and gun types as well.

Yes, further gun control laws will most likely mark the beginning of the end for the way people interact with guns, but thank that percentage of irresponsible gun owners for that.
Click to expand...
The debate is fueled by those that wish to participate in it. Though sure, ( I am assuming on your part, forgive me if incorrect ) we are not policy makers, that does not make our words meaningless or exclude us from 'the debate'. My point with my grandpa's anecdotal story was to highlight how that U.S. citizens are not slaughtering each other at some previously unheard of rate because of the prevalence of firearms. That there were homicide rates far lower than the peak in the 1990's well before strict gun control laws came to be and that homicide rates rose at times even under those laws.

One element of human nature is that rarely some of us wish to kill, and legislation has not changed that, no matter how well meaning or misguided, in 113 years. Why must 99,996 citizens have their possessions "controlled" because of of 4 potential murderers, when a high school kid could walk with a rifle on his shoulder after class to target practice or hunt small game not that long ago? THAT is my rhetorical question, my point.
 
P

PosterOfStuff_sl

shitlord
139
0
JVIRUS_sl said:
The debate is fueled by those that wish to participate in it. Though sure, ( I am assuming on your part, forgive me if incorrect ) we are not policy makers, that does not make our words meaningless or exclude us from 'the debate'. My point with my grandpa's anecdotal story was to highlight how that U.S. citizens are not slaughtering each other at some previously unheard of rate because of the prevalence of firearms. That there were homicide rates far lower than the peak in the 1990's well before strict gun control laws came to be and that homicide rates rose at times even under those laws.

One element of human nature is that rarely some of us wish to kill, and legislation has not changed that, no matter how well meaning or misguided, in 113 years. Why must 99,996 citizens have their possessions "controlled" because of of 4 potential murderers, when a high school kid could walk with a rifle on his shoulder after class to target practice or hunt small game not that long ago? THAT is my rhetorical question, my point.
Click to expand...
Because laws are written to curb that 1 percent of the population that generally fuck the other 99 percent over, be it by being criminals or lazy/cheap bastards.

Individuals that practice responsible gun ownership are not the problem it is the percentage of gun owners that are not, which is the point I get from the posts that Duppin has made. And they will bring about eventual change, they are a danger to everyone.

Your Grandpa, from your story, was a responsible kid and that is one story, but how many kids in his generation did stupid things with guns ? And those are other stories, and it only takes one to change perceptions.

If you are not responsible with guns you are a danger to everyone that is just the way it is, and that is why we are here discussing Gun Control.
 
Big Phoenix

Big Phoenix

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
<Gold Donor>
46,804
99,992
PosterOfStuff_sl said:
Because laws are written to curb that 1 percent of the population that generally fuck the other 99 percent over, be it by being criminals or lazy/cheap bastards.

Individuals that practice responsible gun ownership are not the problem it is the percentage of gun owners that are not, which is the point I get from the posts that Duppin has made. And they will bring about eventual change, they are a danger to everyone.

Your Grandpa, from your story, was a responsible kid and that is one story, but how many kids in his generation did stupid things with guns ? And those are other stories, and it only takes one to change perceptions.

If you are not responsible with guns you are a danger to everyone that is just the way it is, and that is why we are here discussing Gun Control.
Click to expand...
I think you may be confusing gun owner/enthusiast with common criminal.
 
fanaskin

fanaskin

Well known agitator
<Silver Donator>
56,009
138,751
and falsely concluding that bullying some farmer in idaho they can prevent inner city crime which is what the vast majority of the gun crime comes from. actually activley admiting that the groups are unrelated.

what you also don't factor in is that by disarming people who are willing to protect themselves and an area you are activley making society worse, the police have no charge to prevent crime they are only obligated to arrest criminals after a crime has been commited, the only person responsible for protecting yourself is YOU.

why do liberals hate woman, and the elderly? that's who you will activley hurt.(answer: because they never own up to the unintended consequences of their "logic")

""In the early 1990's a study concluded that 650 rapes a day were stopped because the victim was - or may have been - armed. But the number of women who carry, and the number of homes with guns, is much higher now.

The latest prisoners surveys estimate that 3,600 rapes a day are never attempted because the victim either showed a gun, said she had a gun, or the rapist though the victim had a gun for some other reason.""

http://extranosalley.com/?p=15272
 
P

PosterOfStuff_sl

shitlord
139
0
Big Phoenix_sl said:
I think you may be confusing gun owner/enthusiast with common criminal.
Click to expand...
No I am not, I am talking about owning guns in a responsible manner, which everyone seems to think is what all gun owners do.

To be honest I can just step back and just let posters like Fanaskin make further gun legislation seem a better idea every time he posts.
 
Big Phoenix

Big Phoenix

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
<Gold Donor>
46,804
99,992
PosterOfStuff_sl said:
No I am not, I am talking about owning guns in a responsible manner, which everyone seems to think is what all gun owners do.

To be honest I can just step back and just let posters like Fanaskin make further gun legislation seem a better idea every time he posts.
Click to expand...
What exactly are you talking about? Owning in a responsible manner? Do you think gun owners are renting out their firearms to criminals for money or something?
 
Palum

Palum

what Suineg set it to
27,524
43,825
PosterOfStuff_sl said:
Because laws are written to curb that 1 percent of the population that generally fuck the other 99 percent over, be it by being criminals or lazy/cheap bastards.

Individuals that practice responsible gun ownership are not the problem it is the percentage of gun owners that are not, which is the point I get from the posts that Duppin has made. And they will bring about eventual change, they are a danger to everyone.

Your Grandpa, from your story, was a responsible kid and that is one story, but how many kids in his generation did stupid things with guns ? And those are other stories, and it only takes one to change perceptions.

If you are not responsible with guns you are a danger to everyone that is just the way it is, and that is why we are here discussing Gun Control.
Click to expand...
No, laws are written to directly prohibit socially unacceptable acts.

You cannot yell 'fire' in a theater because it is an act that directly puts others in danger.

Every argument about gun control is about the things someone 'might' do by owning them. Why not have tougher laws regarding licensing drivers? Many more people are killed every year because of our lax control over allowing virtually anyone to drive a motor vehicle. Furthermore, it isn't even a right.

I mean, if every anti-gun argument didn't boil down to 'I am scared of the unknown because I do not feel in control', I might give it more credit as a platform. The practicality is you cannot remove guns from America without literally doing so. If you are anti-gun and unwilling to stomach the violence that would ensue, shut up and sit down. There is no piece of legislation apart from repealing the 2nd Amendment and outright banning all firearms from civilian ownership that will touch crime rates at all. And in the meantime, how many hundreds or thousands of more people would die going through that process? How many more would die in the decades after the struggle when only criminals can have guns in every town in America, not just the big city?

Do you know? No? Neither do I. So how about you all shut the fuck up until you are willing to pay the price to enact anything meaningful.

Coincidentally, it would also make you a huge hypocrite to condemn other innocent people to death to pass such extreme reactionary legislation to rare, though no less tragic, events.
 
BrutulTM

BrutulTM

Good, bad, I'm the guy with the gun.
<Silver Donator>
14,762
2,644
Palum_sl said:
There is no piece of legislation apart from repealing the 2nd Amendment and outright banning all firearms from civilian ownership that will touch crime rates at all.
Click to expand...
I'm not so sure that this would reduce crime rates either. It hasn't in other countries that have banned guns.
 
Palum

Palum

what Suineg set it to
27,524
43,825
BrutulTM_sl said:
I'm not so sure that this would reduce crime rates either. It hasn't in other countries that have banned guns.
Click to expand...
It likely wouldn't, but my point is anything less wouldn't dent firearms related crimes given the sheer number of them in this country. Slowing purchases, changing restrictions, it really does fuck all until you go out there and pick them up.
 
LachiusTZ

LachiusTZ

Rogue Deathwalker Box
<Silver Donator>
14,472
27,162
Dubbin, what rights are we losing / have lost / are in danger of losing that is more fundamental and important than owning various types of firearms?
 
D

Duppin_sl

shitlord
3,785
3
It's certainly pretty low on the food chain for me.

Freedom of speech, freedom from religion, habeas corpus are all so far above the ability to own killing implements that it is a different discussion entirely.
 
LachiusTZ

LachiusTZ

Rogue Deathwalker Box
<Silver Donator>
14,472
27,162
Freedom of Speech = Gone
Separation of Church and State (I think thats what you meant?) = Never existed
Habeas Corpus = Joke.

So you managed to name 3 things higher on the list. If you cant name a substantial amount of freedoms more important (never mind how relevant or whether or not currently trampled) then it should be by default a pretty high priority freedom.

I could go for a dive into the deep end of the pool and explain to you how all the other freedoms depend upon the right to bear arms, for without it there is no leverage to force the government to maintain the other ones (save for a Marxist Great Strike, which would never happen in the US due to how deeply embedded in our culture greed is).

I could even spout off a bit of how guns are the great equalizer, and that without them people are at the mercy of people more physically empowered.

Or how statistically immaterial mass murders are vs all other forms of violence, but stats prolly wont work here.

Do not mistake this for a dismissal of the other, currently trampled freedoms, those are just as important, if not more so. But they all lean upon the ability of the populace to throw off the "yoke" of an oppressive government. And that is not possible with out guns, and not .22 cal single shots. Gun regulations should be non-existent.

Instead of focusing on a treatment based approach, which is what you seem to be doing, focus on a cure. And the cure is to fix society. Right now, every mass shooting is front page news for weeks, if not a month +. Which makes other people that have the instability required to even think such a thing is feasible to think it is also viable (since they see it every so often for a month straight that X person did it and killed Y people and seems to have accomplished what they wanted).

Add in the demonizing of violence, people in modern societies tendency to be weak minded and terrified of everything, and you get a toxic mix of weak + stupid + scared + able to vote.

Anyway, back to the current thought, come up with a complete list of rights you see as more important, and how they are completely and 100% independent from the right to bear arms both in fact, and the intent of those rights via the framers.
 
D

Duppin_sl

shitlord
3,785
3
Your ridiculous fantasies of being modern day Minutemen are not realistic. Once you realize that, the whole house of cards topples.
 
LachiusTZ

LachiusTZ

Rogue Deathwalker Box
<Silver Donator>
14,472
27,162
Wow, you really dont get it. It is not some minuteman fantasy, it is the capability of the general population to control the government.

Not only that, but it is the simple fact you are advocating to limit a fundamental right. Maybe in reality it would not have much effect, but the tendency and willingness to do so within society will lead to the further erosion of the other ones that you mistakenly believe are still intact and vital.

Also, you never came up with more than 3 rights that are more important.
 
D

Duppin_sl

shitlord
3,785
3
LachiusTZ_sl said:
Wow, you really dont get it. It is not some minuteman fantasy, it is the capability of the general population to control the government.
Click to expand...
It absolutely is. You have this idea that you're somehow going to rise up with your fellow gun nuts against the ebil gubmint, when the reality is that your lifespan will be in the nanoseconds if you go up against the US military.

We live in a different world than the framers of the Constitution did. It's time for you guys to get with the times. Try funneling the efficiency of NRA lobbying into something that actually matters, like ending poverty or addressing the widening education gap in this country.
 
fanaskin

fanaskin

Well known agitator
<Silver Donator>
56,009
138,751
those rights you listed are fictional, owning a gun is physically real, all those rights you listed are a fiction you have no rights, you have temporary privileges that's it.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.