Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Gun Control

463 replies to this topic
Saggy
  • Saggy

    Captain tl;dr

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 21 Jun 2003
  • None
  • Ban Roulette Winner 2016

#391

Posted 25 August 2017 - 09:22 AM

 

My point still stands. If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. There's gun violence worldwide, not just America. 

Speaking of the US, look at Chicago - it has strict gun laws and it has one of the highest rates of gun crime in the country.

wrong. in France yeah we have pretty much lot of robberies with weapons, but they are toys (can't shoot) in 99% of the cases

in Chicago? you mean where you have 3 states within 100 kms, come on.

full auto are probably fun yeah. but go say this to the Columbine kids (that are probably adults now) that still have the bullets in their bodies. with hunting weapons, slaughters like Columbine would have been 10x less deadly

 

i have a side by side at home that i inherited from my uncle which him inherited from his father (my grand father). and if it didn't have such a strong sentimental value, i would have separated from it. i keep it probably because of my survivalist  side lol

 

 

Well actually if you look at the Cumbria shooting incident in England, it kind of shows that even "hunting" weapons can leave quite a death toll. He killed almost as many people, though spread out over an hour and many miles.  But if you think about the University of Texas sniper incident too, he was using a bolt-action rifle, which many would consider a "hunting" rifle even though it was initially designed for war.

 

sivis,

 

Where are the statistics for justified civilian homicides? I would assume that would be a relevant statistic considering that if someone killed another person ( a homicide ) it would only be justified it it was in self-defense.  On the other hand, I don't know if any such statistic about the number of non-lethal self-defense shootings is collected.

 

 

Personally, I know I've seen quite a few stories locally about a person shooting a home intruder, or even a case of someone shooting a person on the street or thwarting a robbery, but those incidents pale in comparison to the number of stories I see in the local paper about gang shootings, accidental shootings, and things of that nature.

 

I believe the true metric is to examine how many home invasion deaths are the result of a firearm.  Most firearm deaths in the U.S. are suicides if I remember right, but I don't know if they distinguish between accidental and intentional in that context.  I know that's about 20k a year, and then there's gun homicides which are about 10k a year, and of those probably a fraction are justifiable homicides but that can't begin to count incidents where no crime or incident occurred as the result of a firearm being pointed as a deterrent, so it's really not an argument that can really be made in my opinion.

 

I think though the only thing you can really accurately see form the statistics is that you're far more likely to die of an accidental shooting or suicide than of a homicide with a firearm, regardless of context.  When you do look further into the context it's a little trickier because they don't really catalog "gang" shootings, but going by the "local paper" example, the grand majority of shooting deaths are from gang shootings.  I'd really bet that the same can be said for Chicago as well.

 

So in America the real danger seems to be 1) Accidentally shooting yourself or 2) Being mistaken for a gang member and being shot dead on the street at random.  Having a gun doesn't really help to prevent either of these, and just increase incidents of number 1. In a kind of ironic way, if you look at shooting victims, the propensity of them being armed is much more likely than a shooting victim being unarmed. Take a gun to a gun fight, and you're still just as likely to be shot.

 

All that being the case though, I do think that in a country of 300 million people, and firearm fore every one of them and more, it's the volume that counts more than the percentages.  If only 1% of the population is killed in a home invasion every year, that's still kind of a lot of people given the overall population.  It only takes one gruesome incident like that to strike fear into people and so I think it's reasonable that they feel this need to cling to some kind of sense of power and defense.  I think though that Americanism culture has always been to "fight fire with fire," so the concept that armament and the proliferation of firearms is exactly what has caused this problem doesn't really occur to people when they say they're worried about someone breaking into their homes and shooting them.  

 

But in a way it's kind of crying over spilled milk, because the guns are there, and even if we tried to collect them all, there's going to be people to make them or import them and sell them on the black market.  In a way that would only be worse since then the guns would be in the hands of the criminals and there wouldn't even be the "unknown" factor of who might be armed to deter them from muggings and the like. I'm not sure that the American problem can be solved the same way as other country's were.  Sure they had guns, but did they have gun culture?

 

Besides that, home invasions can be scary even if the perpetrators don't have guns, and especially if the victims are young or eldery. There was some drug addict here that broke into some old people's homes, like people in their 90s, and bludgeoned them to death. Not to mention they lived at least 30 minute drive from town so the police response time couldn't have saved them even if a home alarm had went off.  Now, I remember reading a story about something similar happening, maybe elsewhere in the country I'm not sure...  But it was a woman home alone and some guy trying to break in through her door, and she couldn't even get him to leave despite poking him with a fire poker.  She was on the phone with 911 the whole time and this guy got through the door and she shot him.  Kind of hard to convince someone they don't need a gun after they hear about stuff like that.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#392

Posted 25 August 2017 - 10:29 AM

Well actually if you look at the Cumbria shooting incident in England, it kind of shows that even "hunting" weapons can leave quite a death toll.

I don't think anyone is denying this. The Derek Bird case was a law enforcement failing; he should have had his firearms confiscated when he was placed under criminal investigation for fraud.

Where are the statistics for justified civilian homicides? I would assume that would be a relevant statistic considering that if someone killed another person ( a homicide ) it would only be justified it it was in self-defense.  On the other hand, I don't know if any such statistic about the number of non-lethal self-defense shootings is collected.

I wasn't referring solely to actual shootings but any incident in which a criminal situation was devised by an armed citizen. People who champion the defensive value of firearms in response to home invasions etc only ever seem able to cite anecdotes, rather than actual statistics to demonstrate their worth.
  • Saggy and Triple Vacuum Seal like this

Saggy
  • Saggy

    Captain tl;dr

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 21 Jun 2003
  • None
  • Ban Roulette Winner 2016

#393

Posted 25 August 2017 - 03:00 PM

 

Well actually if you look at the Cumbria shooting incident in England, it kind of shows that even "hunting" weapons can leave quite a death toll.

I don't think anyone is denying this. The Derek Bird case was a law enforcement failing; he should have had his firearms confiscated when he was placed under criminal investigation for fraud.

Where are the statistics for justified civilian homicides? I would assume that would be a relevant statistic considering that if someone killed another person ( a homicide ) it would only be justified it it was in self-defense.  On the other hand, I don't know if any such statistic about the number of non-lethal self-defense shootings is collected.

I wasn't referring solely to actual shootings but any incident in which a criminal situation was devised by an armed citizen. People who champion the defensive value of firearms in response to home invasions etc only ever seem able to cite anecdotes, rather than actual statistics to demonstrate their worth.

 

 

jpm1 was saying he thought the Columbine shooting massacre wouldn't have been so deadly if they'd had hunting weapons instead of automatics.

 

Well, it would seem that anecdotes are the only thing to go on, which is why I was curious about what statistics you were looking at that showed such incidents were in fact very rare.  In my mind there's not really any telling how common place they are or are not.

 

But what I'm saying is that even if you could find those statistics, there's the other ones that show possessing and carrying a firearm increases your own likelihood of being shot.  But that's just kind of common sense...  Swimming in pools increases your chances of drowning.  However I do think there is a clear and unnecessary danger added to your life by carrying a firearm around, and there are just as many anecdotal cases to reference where someone shoots themselves accidentally while getting out of their car or something.

 

When do the statistics become a moot point, though?  As you were saying correlation is not the same thing as causation, right?  Maybe all these people accidentally shooting themselves are the same Darwin Award candidates that are going to be killed in a drunk-driving accident if not for the shooting death?  There's a million ways to spin that one I guess, but in some respects I think anecdotal evidence might be a more powerful motivator in this context, especially in the lack of more clear statistical evidence.

 

But what I'm getting at is I think it's really a lot more of like...  The feeling like having a gun is an insurance policy rather than being based in practical need.  With phrases like, "I'd rather have it than not need it, then need it and not have it," it seems to gesture more towards ideals of preparedness and self-preservation.  But that's truly ironic because by "having it" you exponentially increase your odds, statistically and not just anecdotally speaking, of being shot.

 

If you looked at the most common causes of death statistically, then outside of your health maladies, the most common preventable deaths in the U.S. are caused by car accidents and drug overdoses.  With that in mind, you have people in this "prepared" mindset who are at the same time texting and driving, and taking whatever their doctors prescribe them with no questions, and pretending they're "safe" for having a firearm on their side while doing so.  I think this just gets wrapped back up into the sociopolitical "gun culture" that makes the U.S. gun issue such a dangerous one.  It really comes back to this being an issue of ideology over logic.

  • Triple Vacuum Seal likes this

Triple Vacuum Seal
  • Triple Vacuum Seal

    If you ♥ the $, then prepare to die for it.

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 02 Dec 2011
  • United-States

#394

Posted 25 August 2017 - 03:37 PM Edited by Triple Vacuum Seal, 25 August 2017 - 03:49 PM.

^ It's largely cultural indeed.  Guns are inherently menacing in much of the western world.  Yet in the US South and various rural locations, they are just an accessory to be handled with care.  We've desensitized to it in many places.  That gun culture is phasing out as our population urbanizes, people become less exposed to firearms, and the gun regulations adapt accordingly.

 

Sometimes notions of safety and security don't neatly overlap. For as long the assumed risk of gun carrying is as limited to the carrier as possible, then any incidental self-harm that might result could be moot in the broader context of protecting public safety.



 

 

Where are the statistics for justified civilian homicides? I would assume that would be a relevant statistic considering that if someone killed another person ( a homicide ) it would only be justified it it was in self-defense.  On the other hand, I don't know if any such statistic about the number of non-lethal self-defense shootings is collected.

I wasn't referring solely to actual shootings but any incident in which a criminal situation was devised by an armed citizen. People who champion the defensive value of firearms in response to home invasions etc only ever seem able to cite anecdotes, rather than actual statistics to demonstrate their worth.

 

Not to mention the difficulty of tracking crime that never happened as a result of a potential victim being openly armed on foot, or some other deterrent factor that involves never actually firing the gun, the difficult part about presenting statistics to demonstrate the defensive value of guns is that much of the actual use of guns in self-defense situations is undocumented.  In any given urban American neighborhood with high gun violence, people just don't talk to the cops.  I know that might sound radically deviant to those elsewhere in the western world or even those in American suburbs, but the trust factor isn't there between residents and law enforcement in most of these high-crime areas.
 
So while I agree that introducing more guns in response to a criminal threat is not likely to enhance personal safety, there will likely never be a reliable statistic that tracks the use of guns to thwart home invasions, robberies, rapes, etc.  Nonetheless there are other statistics suggesting that non-gun factors are stronger contributors to gun violence than the mere prevalence of gun possession.


jpm1
  • jpm1

    Vice city citizen

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Sep 2005
  • European-Union

#395

Posted 03 October 2017 - 01:13 PM Edited by jpm1, 03 October 2017 - 01:14 PM.

with a hunting rifle he would have done 20 dead and 30 wounded max. the image of the concert with that assault rifle sound in the background is one of the most shocking things i ever saw. in 2017, the excuse: we have war weapons to fight tyrannic governements is ridiculous. farwest era is over, wake up guys. play GTAO, if you love PvP :D


Shermhead
  • Shermhead

    sivispacem keeps editing my posts and profile info

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 24 Jul 2017
  • Mars

#396

Posted 03 October 2017 - 04:39 PM

with a hunting rifle he would have done 20 dead and 30 wounded max. the image of the concert with that assault rifle sound in the background is one of the most shocking things i ever saw. in 2017, the excuse: we have war weapons to fight tyrannic governements is ridiculous. farwest era is over, wake up guys. play GTAO, if you love PvP :D

I'm gonna guess you live in a country where guns are either illegal or heavily restricted, so you don't understand. The 2nd amendment is a right to all Americans at birth. Yeah, what happened was f*cked up, but you also gotta remember he got that fully auto assault rifle illegally. You can't just walk into a store and buy an automatic AK and walk out. That's not how it works. He got some of guns legally and illegally. Specifically the fully auto ones he used on the people in the concert, which caused all the deaths and injuries, were bought illegally. 


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#397

Posted 03 October 2017 - 05:02 PM

What makes you think he obtained fully automatic weapons illegally, as opposed to modifying legal semi-automatic weapons to fire automatically as is done in the overwhelming majority of cases involving fully automatic firearms used in crimes?
  • Tchuck likes this

make total destroy
  • make total destroy

    RAD XTREME LEFTIST

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 19 Oct 2013
  • None
  • Not Very Punk 2016
    Most Desperate Campaign Poster 2015
    April Fools Winner 2015
    Bloody Ungrateful 2016

#398

Posted 03 October 2017 - 05:21 PM

Yeah, what happened was f*cked up, but you also gotta remember he got that fully auto assault rifle illegally.


 

 

Or he modified a legally purchased AR with a legally purchased bump stock, allowing for a higher rate of fire, which appears to be the case.

  • Tchuck, Femme Fatale and Ai®aCob®a like this

Shermhead
  • Shermhead

    sivispacem keeps editing my posts and profile info

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 24 Jul 2017
  • Mars

#399

Posted 03 October 2017 - 05:22 PM Edited by Shermhead, 03 October 2017 - 05:23 PM.

And what makes you think he didn't buy them illegally? The guy was a millionaire. Hell, he could've bought them legally with all the money he had. Doesn't mean I shouldn't be allowed to have such weapons just because he decided to commit a massacre. But that's leftist logic I guess.


jpm1
  • jpm1

    Vice city citizen

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Sep 2005
  • European-Union

#400

Posted 03 October 2017 - 05:44 PM

 i live in France which is no superior in any point to the USA. BUT, here these things happen once every 50 years. to own a 9mm or a .44 here, you need to make a declaration to the police station and to your residence town hall. and believe me if you have mental issues no way you'll get your permit. shotguns of more than 3 cartridges are forbidden. automatic war rifles are stricly forbidden. apart from that you can easily own any hunting rifle or shotgun you want at 16yo. but if you get mad with it, the police will be on your a.. before the thing gets nasty. this is the only difference with the USA. i still don't get that powerful weapons thing. seems it's like a kind of.. God? for some. i mean i'm sorry but it seems that for some people, they just can't live with few assault rifles in their cellar. doesn't it bother you all these kids/innocent people taken away like that. about if the guy got his weapons legally or illegally, i saw a documentary once. it was astonishing to see how one could own automatic weapons in the USA. for the documentary a guy purchased an auto rifle i don't remember but i think it was a .223 to another dude. he purchased the rifle by day, at a guns meeting, on a parking, in open field, without hiding. it was just chilling


Shermhead
  • Shermhead

    sivispacem keeps editing my posts and profile info

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 24 Jul 2017
  • Mars

#401

Posted 03 October 2017 - 05:53 PM

i saw a documentary once. it was astonishing to see how one could own automatic weapons in the USA. for the documentary a guy purchased an auto rifle i don't remember but i think it was a .223 to another dude. he purchased the rifle by day, at a guns meeting, on a parking, in open field, without hiding. it was just chilling

that's strange. because gun stores almost always refuse you access to fully auto firearms unless you have a special license which takes thousands of dollars and years to get, not to mention it's taxed up the ass. 


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#402

Posted 03 October 2017 - 06:20 PM

And what makes you think he didn't buy them illegally?

Occam's Razor? History? As I said before, the majority of spree shootings or other mass casualty attacks involving fully automatic firearms in the US have been committed with illegally modified semi-automatic firearms. Though the sample size is fairly small to be fair.

Until such a time as evidence is presented supporting the notion of him illegally acquiring fully automatic firearms, I think it's far more probable they were legally acquired but illegally converted semi-automatic weapons.

Doesn't mean I shouldn't be allowed to have such weapons just because he decided to commit a massacre.

Do you mean a semi-automatic rifle or an automatic one? I assume the former. And I don't think I fundamentally disagree. I just think you should have to go through a proper system of licencing, vetting, registration and mandatory training before you can.

El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil" ™

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars
  • April Fools Loser 2015

#403

Posted 03 October 2017 - 07:25 PM Edited by El Diablo, 03 October 2017 - 07:26 PM.

the Las Vegas massacre is basically another example of White Privilege in action.

 

if the shooter had a thick black beard and brown skin we would invade another country, deploy the army, wiretap our citizens phones, and throw suspected terrorists into black-cell prisons without trial. but because the shooter is a white guy nothing will change. gun manufacturer's stock prices will soar. American citizens are dying for firearms profits.

 

http://www.marketwat...egas-2017-10-02


Chiari
  • Chiari

    Russian Bump Stocks Can't Melt Steel Beams

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2014
  • United-States

#404

Posted 03 October 2017 - 07:39 PM

the Las Vegas massacre is basically another example of White Privilege in action.
 
if the shooter had a thick black beard and brown skin we would invade another country, deploy the army, wiretap our citizens phones, and throw suspected terrorists into black-cell prisons without trial. but because the shooter is a white guy nothing will change. gun manufacturer's stock prices will soar. American citizens are dying for firearms profits.
 
http://www.marketwat...egas-2017-10-02


Did we do that for the Orlando shooting? You're such a racist. This man didn't even have an agenda that we know about. That's kinda the underlying commonality amongst terrorists; they all have some kind of agenda they want to push.
  • feckyerlife and Shermhead like this

Shermhead
  • Shermhead

    sivispacem keeps editing my posts and profile info

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 24 Jul 2017
  • Mars

#405

Posted 03 October 2017 - 07:49 PM

the Las Vegas massacre is basically another example of White Privilege in action.

 

if the shooter had a thick black beard and brown skin we would invade another country, deploy the army, wiretap our citizens phones, and throw suspected terrorists into black-cell prisons without trial. but because the shooter is a white guy nothing will change. gun manufacturer's stock prices will soar. American citizens are dying for firearms profits.

 

http://www.marketwat...egas-2017-10-02

"White Privilege" doesn't exist my friend.

 

btw, by definition it wasn't terrorism because terrorism is religiously and/or politically motivated, neither of which the guy associated himself with.


El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil" ™

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars
  • April Fools Loser 2015

#406

Posted 03 October 2017 - 07:55 PM

Did we do that for the Orlando shooting?

you're not paying attention, but what else is new...
the CIA conducted multiple investigations and found no evidence of any ties or any communications between ISIS and the Orlando shooter. he had no terrorist connections.
 
the point is that America experiences more domestic terror by it's own citizens than it does from foreigners or religious extremists. many more people in this country have been killed by white dudes with legal firearms than brown dudes with terror connections. and yet we only seem to be at war with the religious extremists who have brown skin and not the white guys with the much higher body-count.
 

"White Privilege" doesn't exist my friend.

you're an idiot.
white privilege is very real. if you can't see it then you're not even trying to look.
 

terrorism is religiously and/or politically motivated

news flash: that's not the only definition of terrorism.
 
maybe you'd like to try again.


Chiari
  • Chiari

    Russian Bump Stocks Can't Melt Steel Beams

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2014
  • United-States

#407

Posted 03 October 2017 - 08:26 PM

 

Did we do that for the Orlando shooting?

you're not paying attention, but what else is new...
the CIA conducted multiple investigations and found no evidence of any ties or any communications between ISIS and the Orlando shooter. he had no terrorist connections.
 
the point is that America experiences more domestic terror by it's own citizens than it does from foreigners or religious extremists. many more people in this country have been killed by white dudes with legal firearms than brown dudes with terror connections. and yet we only seem to be at war with the religious extremists who have brown skin and not the white guys with the much higher body-count.
 

 

You could've saved yourself a lot of wasted words by just saying 'you're right Chiari, we didn't'. This is what you said

 

 

if the shooter had a thick black beard and brown skin we would invade another country, deploy the army, wiretap our citizens phones, and throw suspected terrorists into black-cell prisons without trial.

 

This line of bullsh*t is either a joke or a manifestation of delusion. I mean you're comparing the Vegas shooting to 9/11 so something is clearly wrong with you.

  • Ruin and Shermhead like this

Shermhead
  • Shermhead

    sivispacem keeps editing my posts and profile info

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 24 Jul 2017
  • Mars

#408

Posted 03 October 2017 - 08:35 PM

the only privilege I see is minority privilege. talk trash about a black guy (even if it has nothing to do with his race) then you're a racist. talk trash about a white guy and it's funny. white cop kills a black guy (whether it be in self-defense or not) it blows up all over the news, black cop kills a white guy (whether it be in self-defense or not) you never hear a word about it. and it happens a lot. happen to be a white straight male American republican? You're a white supremacist. happen to be a black (or any other race than Caucasian) gay male/female American democrat? You're a freedom fighter in the evil white man's world. You're oppressed and deserve more rights than you already have. doesn't matter that you have the same opportunities as a white man, because no, you're oppressed and hated by society. You deserve more than those white devils.


Tchuck
  • Tchuck

    Grey Gaming

  • Feroci
  • Joined: 20 Dec 2002
  • Japan

#409

Posted 04 October 2017 - 12:10 AM Edited by Tchuck, 04 October 2017 - 12:11 AM.

 

the only privilege I see is minority privilege. talk trash about a black guy (even if it has nothing to do with his race) then you're a racist.

 

That's not even remotely true. If you criticize a black person for legitimate reasons, it's completely fine. If you add race to it in any way, shape, or form, you ARE a racist.

 

 

 black cop kills a white guy (whether it be in self-defense or not) you never hear a word about it. and it happens a lot. 

 

Really? Care to show us your statistics supporting this? Cause it doesn't seem to be "happening a lot". Like, at all.

 

 

 happen to be a white straight male American republican? You're a white supremacist. 

 

Chances are big that you are, though.

 

 

happen to be a black (or any other race than Caucasian) gay male/female American democrat? You're a freedom fighter in the evil white man's world.

 

Said no-one, ever. Holy cow you have a twisted view of life.

 

 

You're oppressed

 

By and large, minorities et al are oppressed.

 

 

and deserve more rights than you already have

 

No-one is talking about "deserving" "more rights". We're all talking about EQUAL RIGHTS. 

 

 

doesn't matter that you have the same opportunities as a white man

 

I mean, by and large white men have the most number of opportunities by default, though. That's pretty much a fact. 

 

So wow boy you are wrong. On all counts. Is there anything you say that can actually be supported by evidence?

 

Also, won't you look at that: legally modified semi-auto turned into full auto found on the killer's hotel room. Are you still going to maintain that he bought the firearms illegally?

  • El Diablo and Cebra like this

Shermhead
  • Shermhead

    sivispacem keeps editing my posts and profile info

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 24 Jul 2017
  • Mars

#410

Posted 04 October 2017 - 02:27 AM Edited by Shermhead, 04 October 2017 - 02:31 AM.

 

 

the only privilege I see is minority privilege. talk trash about a black guy (even if it has nothing to do with his race) then you're a racist.

 

That's not even remotely true. If you criticize a black person for legitimate reasons, it's completely fine. If you add race to it in any way, shape, or form, you ARE a racist.

 

 

 black cop kills a white guy (whether it be in self-defense or not) you never hear a word about it. and it happens a lot. 

 

Really? Care to show us your statistics supporting this? Cause it doesn't seem to be "happening a lot". Like, at all.

 

 

 happen to be a white straight male American republican? You're a white supremacist. 

 

Chances are big that you are, though.

 

 

happen to be a black (or any other race than Caucasian) gay male/female American democrat? You're a freedom fighter in the evil white man's world.

 

Said no-one, ever. Holy cow you have a twisted view of life.

 

 

You're oppressed

 

By and large, minorities et al are oppressed.

 

 

and deserve more rights than you already have

 

No-one is talking about "deserving" "more rights". We're all talking about EQUAL RIGHTS. 

 

 

doesn't matter that you have the same opportunities as a white man

 

I mean, by and large white men have the most number of opportunities by default, though. That's pretty much a fact. 

 

Plenty of leftist double standard in you, Tchuck. Chances are big that I'm a white supremacist because I'm a white American male republican? Are you f*cking serious? Bet you wouldn't be saying the same thing if I called all democrats anti-white commie lovers. Yeah, minorities were oppressed in the 1950s but that time period is over. Minorities have equal rights, there's nothing else to fight over except for wanting more rights than white men. 

 

btw, here's a topic about the killing of whites by cops: http://time.com/4404...olice-violence/


Tchuck
  • Tchuck

    Grey Gaming

  • Feroci
  • Joined: 20 Dec 2002
  • Japan

#411

Posted 04 October 2017 - 03:52 AM

 

Plenty of leftist double standard in you, Tchuck

 

What?

 

 

Chances are big that I'm a white supremacist because I'm a white American male republican? Are you f*cking serious?

 

Statistically speaking, yes I'm serious. Their agendas align on many points. 

 

 

Bet you wouldn't be saying the same thing if I called all democrats anti-white commie lovers

 

For one, I didn't say ALL republicans are white supremacists. I said chances are if you are a republican, you're more likely to be a white supremacist than if you were a democrat.

And if you called all democrats anit-white commie lovers, I'd just pity you because your delusion is quite sad.

 

 

 Yeah, minorities were oppressed in the 1950s but that time period is over. 

 

No it isn't.

 

 

Minorities have equal rights

 

No they don't.

 

 

 there's nothing else to fight over except for wanting more rights than white men. 

 

I mean, they aren't wanting more rights than white men. They're wanting equal rights, which they still don't have because they are still oppressed by society. 

 

I get it though, you must be some frustrated beta male that projects your failure at life on minorities having it "easier" than you.

 

 

btw, here's a topic about the killing of whites by cops: http://time.com/4404...olice-violence/

 

Thank you for proving exactly my point. In absolutes, of course more whites are killed than blacks, since there are almost 5 times more white people than blacks in America. But blacks made up for half of those being killed by the police, so a far larger percentage of the black population is being killed by police if compared to whites. 

 

Also your article mentions nothing about white people being killed by black officers and society sweeping it under the rug.

 

Oh and I know you have a pechant for hiding from questions, so I'll ask again:

 

 

 

Also, won't you look at that: legally modified semi-auto turned into full auto found on the killer's hotel room. Are you still going to maintain that he bought the firearms illegally?
  • El Diablo likes this

Shermhead
  • Shermhead

    sivispacem keeps editing my posts and profile info

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 24 Jul 2017
  • Mars

#412

Posted 04 October 2017 - 04:31 AM Edited by Shermhead, 04 October 2017 - 04:38 AM.

 

 

Plenty of leftist double standard in you, Tchuck

 

What?

 

 

Chances are big that I'm a white supremacist because I'm a white American male republican? Are you f*cking serious?

 

Statistically speaking, yes I'm serious. Their agendas align on many points. 

 

 

Bet you wouldn't be saying the same thing if I called all democrats anti-white commie lovers

 

For one, I didn't say ALL republicans are white supremacists. I said chances are if you are a republican, you're more likely to be a white supremacist than if you were a democrat.

And if you called all democrats anit-white commie lovers, I'd just pity you because your delusion is quite sad.

 

 

 Yeah, minorities were oppressed in the 1950s but that time period is over. 

 

No it isn't.

 

 

Minorities have equal rights

 

No they don't.

 

 

 there's nothing else to fight over except for wanting more rights than white men. 

 

I mean, they aren't wanting more rights than white men. They're wanting equal rights, which they still don't have because they are still oppressed by society. 

 

I get it though, you must be some frustrated beta male that projects your failure at life on minorities having it "easier" than you.

 

 

btw, here's a topic about the killing of whites by cops: http://time.com/4404...olice-violence/

 

Thank you for proving exactly my point. In absolutes, of course more whites are killed than blacks, since there are almost 5 times more white people than blacks in America. But blacks made up for half of those being killed by the police, so a far larger percentage of the black population is being killed by police if compared to whites. 

 

Also your article mentions nothing about white people being killed by black officers and society sweeping it under the rug.

 

Oh and I know you have a pechant for hiding from questions, so I'll ask again:

 

 

 

Also, won't you look at that: legally modified semi-auto turned into full auto found on the killer's hotel room. Are you still going to maintain that he bought the firearms illegally?

 

The leftist agenda is just as bad if not worse. And actually yes, you did. "Chances are big that you are, though" is assuming the vast majority of republicans are white supremacists which is complete bullsh*t. The left is apparently against assuming and judging books by their covers yet they do it all the time, prime example being you. And please give me one example of minorities having it worse than whites in modern times. Please. Biased sources don't count. Also it's already been proven that despite making up 13% of the population, blacks commit 50% of crimes in the US. This is not me making up stories, this is not me being "racist" as you would say, these are FBI statistics. btw, calling people frustrated beta males who fail at life behind the safety of your computer screen makes you look like the beta male, not me pal.


Saggy
  • Saggy

    Captain tl;dr

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 21 Jun 2003
  • None
  • Ban Roulette Winner 2016

#413

Posted 04 October 2017 - 06:30 AM

All this leftist, white privilege, so on and so forth isn't really germane to the issue of gun control is it?  Especially when there's the general U.S. politics thread for that...

 

I guess that kind of isn't easy to really separate this as a political issue since everyone has their own opinion of how it relates to other politics. I think in terms of gun control this should have obvious implications for "bump stocks" which were reportedly used.

 

What typically pisses me off in the discussing of gun control is the mental health deflection. It seems like a reasonably logical assertion that people with mentally illnesses shouldn't be allowed to own firearms, but then when you consider that there's an estimated 50-60 million Americans with some form of mental illness ( not including those with undiagnosed illnesses ) then you start to realize such legislation would probably be more prohibitive across a wider range of people than any other type of legislation that's been suggested to regulate guns so far.  For those that suggest any modicum of regulation is a slipper slope to a "gun ban", they sure seem to try to deflect with the mental-health scapegoat without realizing it would more quickly facilitate than "gun ban" more than anything else.

 

Here's a good question...

 

Should a person really be allowed to own 43 different firearms? I mean, I know the 2nd Amendment supposedly gives us a right to maintain a standing militia, but isn't that under the guise of protecting us from a tyrannical government? Meanwhile it seems like society is far more toxic to itself than the government is when you look at incidents like this one in Las Vegas. When is the last time the government opened fire on a crowd of people with automatic weapon and killed close to 60 of them? It's as if we're trying to view the poison as the cure.


DOUGL4S1
  • DOUGL4S1

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Dec 2016
  • Brazil

#414

Posted 04 October 2017 - 04:17 PM

This firearms discussion really went downhill a few posts ago...

 

I'm from a country where weapons are mostly illegal and extremelly hard and expensive to get legally, so I just want to ask something: I've heard the 2nd Amendment was written in a time before automatic rifles and ARs or AKs and stuff, so do you think it should apply to them? In the way it grants people the access to firearms, the people who wrote them probably didn't count on the invention of weapons that could fire multiple rounds per second and pierce a bullet through a wall, that are probably better than the equipment of most countries' armies. Even tho harder access to heavier firearms would've made the Vegas shooting still possible, it would make it a lot harder to pull off, and the same applies to the multiple shootings on the USA every week.

  • El Diablo likes this

Saggy
  • Saggy

    Captain tl;dr

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 21 Jun 2003
  • None
  • Ban Roulette Winner 2016

#415

Posted 04 October 2017 - 08:13 PM

This firearms discussion really went downhill a few posts ago...
 
I'm from a country where weapons are mostly illegal and extremelly hard and expensive to get legally, so I just want to ask something: I've heard the 2nd Amendment was written in a time before automatic rifles and ARs or AKs and stuff, so do you think it should apply to them? In the way it grants people the access to firearms, the people who wrote them probably didn't count on the invention of weapons that could fire multiple rounds per second and pierce a bullet through a wall, that are probably better than the equipment of most countries' armies. Even tho harder access to heavier firearms would've made the Vegas shooting still possible, it would make it a lot harder to pull off, and the same applies to the multiple shootings on the USA every week.


2nd Amendment supporters argue that the amendment was actually created so that an armed populace can act as another check and balance against government so that it will never become corrupt. The text reads that we also have the right to "maintain a well regulated militia" as well. So basically the argued intent of the 2nd amendment was that the common man have access to arms that are on the same level or at least comparable to what the military and government possess.

Think about it like this, the weaponry we had at the time was not impotent. There existed rifles (a little deadlier than a musket) though they were rare, muskets were more common, and you had cannons. Don't forget that cross bows and bows and arrows at the time were quite formidable until the advent of the repeating rifle. Yet even though all arms were not created equally, the writers saw it fit not to draw restrictions on what level of weapons a person could have.

Modern incarnation and interpretation of the 2A has been modified to suggest the average person not need access to fully automatic weapons and large caliber weapons but the real extreme interpretation of the 2A by some doesn't and that's also the side that is most vocally opposed to new regulations. The Supreme Court and most Americans don't see the 2A in the same way, but as the saying goes, the empty can rattles the most,

I feel people who interpret the 2A as supposedly being there to ensure a check and balance against government tyranny don't realize how far out of touch with reality they are. The small arms we can possess are no match against a modern military force, and beyond that their logic is cyclically faulty. First they suggest having access to firearms is the only thing keeping the government in check, and then they claim regulations are useless because people will always have access. Well if people will always be able to get guns and restrictions are futile, then why worry about being able to get them in order to respond to government tyranny?

The end result is that any and all gun control legislation is seen as a part of some slow conniving plot to ultimately disarm us permanently.
  • El Diablo, Tchuck and DOUGL4S1 like this

El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil" ™

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars
  • April Fools Loser 2015

#416

Posted 04 October 2017 - 11:02 PM Edited by El Diablo, 04 October 2017 - 11:04 PM.

This line of bullsh*t is either a joke or a manifestation of delusion. I mean you're comparing the Vegas shooting to 9/11 so something is clearly wrong with you.

now you're just putting words in my mouth.

 

nobody is comparing Vegas to Sept 11.

what I was talking about was the response and the reaction we display as a country.

 

domestic terror is responsible for far more American lives than brown people overseas.

yet we only seem to react and respond to brown people overseas. we go to war for a single act of terror but we can't seem to lift a finger to address our own ugly, violent, racist, systemic issues. we deploy endless resources for a single act of terror. we do nothing for hundreds upon hundreds of smaller acts that are routinely committed by our own citizens. our leaders and representatives stand up on their soap box and pledge bottomless spending for bombs and tanks but they never address mental health or the common sense regulations that the vast majority of people already agree on.

 

it's shameful and hypocritical at best.

at worst they are partly responsible for these massacres. they can take their 'thoughts and prayers' and shove it. the NRA and their bought-paid-for congressmen have blood on their hands.


D.B. Cooper
  • D.B. Cooper

    Seems like it's my turn again

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2016
  • Australia

#417

Posted 05 October 2017 - 01:43 AM

Why are you spreading straight-up propaganda from /pol/ if you don't want to be seen as racist?

2Pn30nv.png

  • Tchuck, Melchior and RedDagger like this

Tchuck
  • Tchuck

    Grey Gaming

  • Feroci
  • Joined: 20 Dec 2002
  • Japan

#418

Posted 05 October 2017 - 02:04 AM

Why are you spreading straight-up propaganda from /pol/ if you don't want to be seen as racist?

 

Because he's a beta male being oppressed by the evil minorities who want to take over the world.

 

But now we have more evidence as to why we can't take him seriously in debates.

 

Anywho, on to the topic at hand:

 

Aren't certain medications extremely controlled in America? To the point where you're likely to trigger some government agency somewhere if you buy too many of a kind of medicine that is known to be usable for the manufacture of drugs or something?

 

If so, why not do the same with ammunition? Let people buy the guns they wanna buy, but put tighter control on ammunition, have all the purchases registered, and raise flags if someone begins buying way too many rounds. I get that you'd need 10-20 rounds if you wanna go hunting. But why would you need to "stockpile" on hundreds of rounds and whatnot? Hey and if you have a legitimate reason, surely it can be approved by the authorities and whatnot. 


Shermhead
  • Shermhead

    sivispacem keeps editing my posts and profile info

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 24 Jul 2017
  • Mars

#419

Posted 05 October 2017 - 02:22 AM

But why would you need to "stockpile" on hundreds of rounds and whatnot? Hey and if you have a legitimate reason, surely it can be approved by the authorities and whatnot. 

Because maybe people like to shoot at the range for fun and don't want to rent the ranges' guns and ammunition?


Tchuck
  • Tchuck

    Grey Gaming

  • Feroci
  • Joined: 20 Dec 2002
  • Japan

#420

Posted 05 October 2017 - 02:28 AM

 

But why would you need to "stockpile" on hundreds of rounds and whatnot? Hey and if you have a legitimate reason, surely it can be approved by the authorities and whatnot. 

Because maybe people like to shoot at the range for fun and don't want to rent the ranges' guns and ammunition?

 

 

Great; buy the ammo at your preferred store when you're planning to go to the range.

 

Doesn't mean you need to stockpile on hundreds of rounds. 





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users