Mass Shootings, American Pride, Gun Laws...

[delirium]

3 minutes ago, Phoenix_ said:

Yes, two. Four if you count the ones I'll inherit from my dad once I get out of college.

And your posts are reasonable and well thought out on the issue. 

 

Just wondering where some of the perspectives are coming from. I've lived in areas where the police only show up to clean up the mess and being able to be my own first responder in any scenario that warrants that kind of escalation is a whole lot more comforting than the opposite.

 

Crux of this issue is "guns bad" by anyone who doesn't have experience with firearms because of the content and numbers that get blown up in their face anytime something like this happens. You get a portion of generally left leaning people advocating for laws which they have no understanding of as the majority of people who call for bans have never operated or taken safety courses for the subject matter they would like to impose bans on.

 

I'm all for more in-depth background checks, psychological evaluations, raising the minimum age, ect... as mentioned in the previous thread, however, none of that or any legislation introduced will change the fact that people with ill intent will still be able to get their hands on a weapon. Hell, I've had friends that were running around with  (very much illegal) MAC-10s in our early 20s on some dumb shit. If the retards I knew could get weapons like that why should I not be able to arm myself legally?

[jazzy]

3 hours ago, Gentoo said:

Careful with your words here. How many of these bozos do you think are psychopaths/sociopaths? I can see the case being made for the Columbine shooters, but anyone deeply affected by bullying would not fit the bill for "blunted emotional response", their issues would seem to be a bit more nuanced.

I mean I guess it's true I don't really have much thought either way about the mental faculties of these shooters. Not sure I really find it that important. If they didn't have a gun they'd probably just use another tool to kill them so from my perspective it's irrelevant. I understand we should work towards reducing mental health issues, etc, but I think you can agree there's not possible to 100% narrow out stuff like that. Something something as long as there is two people in the world, someone is going to want someone dead.

At the end of the day I really don't think the high end guns, the ones that have qualities and efficiencies beneficial to kill people at a faster rate than other guns should be legal. (sorry typo)

edit: and just to iterate further when I say high end I don't just mean "high caliber" or anything. Mostly a weight system where certain weaponry/ammunition/gear is more useful to harm civilians than it is to "protect yourself from da gubbament" I'm personally anti gun on like 99% of weaponry but I'm realistic that won't happen in my lifetime. I think a lot of "gun people" like to jerk themselves hard and go after "not gun people" over small discrepancies in their argument like is X an AR or is Y a clip or stupid stuff. Just acknowledge that a lot of guns are better at killing people than other guns and many Americans are now wondering if those are really necessary in modern society.

At the core I think we just have completely conflicting belief systems. You believe that without the 2nd amendment, the government can and assuredly will become autho, and guns one of the major tools to prevent this

 

40 minutes ago, delirium said:

Does anyone who has responded to this thread so far even own a gun? Just wondering... (and no its not to shoot gentoo; i promise.) 

Has anyone responded in this thread been in a mass shooting? Just wondering...

[kabLe]

1 hour ago, jazzy said:

I mean I guess it's true I don't really have much thought either way about the mental faculties of these shooters. Not sure I really find it that important. If they didn't have a gun they'd probably just use another tool to kill them so from my perspective it's irrelevant. I understand we should work towards reducing mental health issues, etc, but I think you can agree there's not possible to 100% narrow out stuff like that. Something something as long as there is two people in the world, someone is going to want someone dead.

At the end of the day I really don't think the high end guns, the ones that have qualities and efficiencies beneficial to kill people at a faster rate than other guns should be legal. (sorry typo)

edit: and just to iterate further when I say high end I don't just mean "high caliber" or anything. Mostly a weight system where certain weaponry/ammunition/gear is more useful to harm civilians than it is to "protect yourself from da gubbament" I'm personally anti gun on like 99% of weaponry but I'm realistic that won't happen in my lifetime. I think a lot of "gun people" like to jerk themselves hard and go after "not gun people" over small discrepancies in their argument like is X an AR or is Y a clip or stupid stuff. Just acknowledge that a lot of guns are better at killing people than other guns and many Americans are now wondering if those are really necessary in modern society.

At the core I think we just have completely conflicting belief systems. You believe that without the 2nd amendment, the government can and assuredly will become autho, and guns one of the major tools to prevent this

 

Has anyone responded in this thread been in a mass shooting? Just wondering...

 Maybe I missed it but I don't see anywhere that Gentoo said he believes that without the second amendment our government will absolutely become a bunch of cunts. Though if they were, guns would be a big deterrent no? The second amendment was specifically put in as a counter measure to any possibility that it ever happens yes? 

 

I don't know what your views on Donald Trump but in general we both know many of the people who say the government would never do that when it comes to the gun debate also called donald trump authoritarian and acted as if they were terrified he was going to shatter all precedents and seize power for good. Feel free to tell me I'm wrong but a lot of people I know that are anti gun and believe the government would never be so authoritarian that we would need to defend ourselves from them, were also equally terrified that the day would come when trump seizes all power of government and they would be forced to take up arms and defend themselves...in fact they were so terrified they voted in the worst US president in the history of our country when all in all, our country was much better off.

 

I guess my point is it's a bit short sighted to say, banning guns shouldn't be off the table because the government would never be so cunty as to become full authoritarian once we are properly de-armed.( I also understand that you said you realize it would never realistically happen, but what I'm pulling out of your argument is that if it WERE a realistic possibility, you would be all for a total ban?) Is it likely? Who's to say. Rome was around for 700 years before it collapsed and we aren't even half way there. But I personally wouldn't put it passed because "da gubbament" is just a bunch of cunts and if you ever get a real shitty bunch of cunts who are all on the same page as far as fuck the little guy, could spell trouble.

[delirium]

 

Quote

 I think a lot of "gun people" like to jerk themselves hard and go after "not gun people" over small discrepancies in their argument like is X an AR or is Y a clip or stupid stuff. Just acknowledge that a lot of guns are better at killing people than other guns and many Americans are now wondering if those are really necessary in modern society.

 

Thank you for admitting that you're uneducated on the subject. While I understand people are still allowed to have opinions on subjects they have little to no understanding of; I think subject knowledge still plays a huge part in most debates or persuasive arguments in general.  

 

 

Quote

I mean I guess it's true I don't really have much thought either way about the mental faculties of these shooters. Not sure I really find it that important. If they didn't have a gun they'd probably just use another tool to kill them so from my perspective it's irrelevant. I understand we should work towards reducing mental health issues, etc, but I think you can agree there's not possible to 100% narrow out stuff like that.

 

Mental health is a huge factor in any homicide that was not out of self defense and that's a hill I'll die on. Not being able to catch 100% of the population predisposed to murdering children doesn't really negate anything said in favor of increasing restrictions and evaluations.

 

 

Quote

and just to iterate further when I say high end I don't just mean "high caliber" or anything. Mostly a weight system where certain weaponry/ammunition/gear is more useful to harm civilians than it is to "protect yourself from da gubbament"

 

Imposing security theatre restrictions will do nothing to achieve your end goal, just makes it slightly more inconvenient.

 

Quote

 At the core I think we just have completely conflicting belief systems. You believe that without the 2nd amendment, the government can and assuredly will become autho, and guns one of the major tools to prevent this

 

I believe the most effective home defense tool is a firearm. Do I believe my rifles will do anything to a APC that the local PD got off surplus, much less a military drone? Absolutely not. Will I still defend my right to possess the most effective tools in protecting the unalienable rights granted to me by citizenship in this country? Absolutely. 

 

 

[Frostbitten]

Just wanted to drop this off. 

[BoM]

3 hours ago, delirium said:

Thank you for admitting that you're uneducated on the subject. While I understand people are still allowed to have opinions on subjects they have little to no understanding of; I think subject knowledge still plays a huge part in most debates or persuasive arguments in general. 

Literally everyone here, myself included, have little to no understanding of full legislative law, the scope of the house & congress in the matter, nor the full understanding of what is considered infringement of the 2nd amendment or not. Fact is most of America has a very basic understanding on a slew of issues on both sides and we vote in people who say they will support XYZ issue and hope they know enough or know people that know enough to move that issue in the direction we want.

 

Entire thread is full of huge assumptions on how the government operates, would operate, & legislates as a whole so idk why we really gotta bring up who and who doesn't own a gun. I don't own a gun and am for being able to legally own pretty much as many guns as I please and acquire them in a timely and reasonable manner. Is my opinion not going to get weighed the same because of my supposed 'lack of subject knowledge' or is it only people talking from the deep left?

[jazzy]

4 hours ago, kabLe said:

Maybe I missed it but I don't see anywhere that Gentoo said he believes that without the second amendment our government will absolutely become a bunch of cunts.

 

I mean he used the word "will"

 

4 hours ago, kabLe said:

But I personally wouldn't put it passed because "da gubbament" is just a bunch of cunts and if you ever get a real shitty bunch of cunts who are all on the same page as far as fuck the little guy, could spell trouble.

I had wanted to bring this up in the last thread but it got locked but just my 2c on this whole thing is that it won't happen like you think it will happen. I think mentally people assume that it's "govt vs people" when never in the history of ever has that ever happened. Someone else brought up the whole "we can't ban guns cuz big fight" this was literally the whole problem with abolishing slavery, and everyone pussy footed around it to avoid the ensuring war that it just bubbled to the top and exploded. When civil war came nobody in the North, backed by the (real) federal government was saying "yeah we're the autho bad guys hehe." Everyone in the North fighting to abolish slaves (hurr durr states right) didn't feel authoritarian, but the South worked hard to paint them as such. And ultimately when the North won did the US government become an authoritarian regime? Not really.

In many ways, the fight over slavery, the argument of rights and who's rights are whose, and the considered "benefits to society" are all something to think about. Slavery was a human rights violation to benefit select members in society at the suffering of many. I think we've moved further enough long in the argument that nobody has really disputed a key point I made- certain guns are much, much better at killing people than say a knife, or a car. When we narrow in on that and accept that guns may provide some teeth to the citizens, does the net benefit of possibly preventing authoritarianism outweigh the societal punishment for having them by enabling people to continue to leverage them to kill those within society? I mean, just as a reminder, these guns are being used to kill kids. Kids, who are 'legally bound' to come to school (unless the parents can get them homeschooled), who cannot legally arm themselves, and who cannot legally vote (hey wait weren't we just talking about authoritarianism?). I think we have to make a pretty solid choice here... Are we, as a society, putting kids as lambs to the slaughter on the basis that we need to retain some right that most countries don't even have or give a shit about? The graph posted in page 1 was clear - firearm related incidents are the #1 killer of children in America. I would argue it's one of the biggest problems plaguing adolescence today.

And I think that ties in decently into my next discussion (this is out of order):

3 hours ago, delirium said:

Mental health is a huge factor in any homicide that was not out of self defense and that's a hill I'll die on. Not being able to catch 100% of the population predisposed to murdering children doesn't really negate anything said in favor of increasing restrictions and evaluations.

I wonder what the pound for pound is on "mental heath" when as a kid the number #1 killer of yourself and your friends is being shot. When I went to school all I was worried about was my acne and people making fun of it. Now we got motherfuckers with legally purchased "assault rifles" walking in and shooting everyone in a locked room for an hour. I'm sure that's healthy for kids' mental well being.

 

Color me skeptical on this whole mental health discussion cuz I'm stuck in the healthcare world here and have to pay like $10k/yr in insurance shit and w/o insurance my drugs cost $13k/mo. Sir will you sign my petition on M4A? How about Medicaid/Medicare expansion in my state? My state still hasn't expanded Medicare/Medicaid, is it any surprise my state is red, and my governor spoke at the NRA convention?

But more seriously, sure, I think you and a couple other people are trying to hype up mental health awareness and that's great but we're slowly rotating the dial back to this whole "America isn't the only country with bad mental health."
I think someone mentioned it in another thread about how "it's a parenting problem." Which I totally agree with, but does anyone think the government can regulate parenting? More importantly, perhaps we could stop locking up people all the time and they might have some parents 

We might have a lot mentally healthier population if we quit locking up every fucking person who breaks even the smallest crimes, and even additionally, stopped locking them up in a place so fucked up that every single American believes male prison is filled with sexual assault crimes. Seriously, the scariest thing about prison should be being locked in a prison for X years to serve a sentence, prevented from the leisure of freedom, not whether or not you might get raped.

 

3 hours ago, delirium said:

Thank you for admitting that you're uneducated on the subject. While I understand people are still allowed to have opinions on subjects they have little to no understanding of; I think subject knowledge still plays a huge part in most debates or persuasive arguments in general.  

 

5 hours ago, delirium said:

Does anyone who has responded to this thread so far even own a gun? Just wondering...

Which I really think you wanted to say was "Does anyone here who's not pro 2A, actually know about guns?" but instead you used this weird roundabout way to try and be like "Aha, you don't own a gun, therefore you aren't an expert on the subject!" which is a pretty silly, given the last time we talked about this I think I adequately depicted a gun owner, who really didn't know how to use a gun.

So to answer, what I think your question should've been, is: Yes I know how to use a gun and have a small amount of hours firing them at a range and out in the country, using guns I do not own, nor have ever owned.
 

And just to narrow in on what I said earlier, can you actually tell me what made you believe I'm 'uneducated' on guns? You didn't actually debate the point, you just tried to gatekeep me out of it. Like seriously- "You're uneducated and I will find it hard to be persuaded by someone who I don't believe is educated". So what were the arguments you weren't persuaded by exactly? Was it the part where I said certain guns are better at killing people than other guns... Do you not agree with that?

 

3 hours ago, delirium said:

Imposing security theatre restrictions will do nothing to achieve your end goal, just makes it slightly more inconvenient.

What's the basis for such an argument? (See BoM's post from pg1)

Oh and just one small side note:

  

On 6/2/2022 at 10:36 AM, delirium said:

This is what it looks like when appeals to emotion is the foundational basis in a discussion for an issue as nuanced as gun ownership in America. 

I think BoM posted graphs, or were we thinking these are appeal to emotion too (I noticed you never engaged him on any of this data):

 

[FanService]

This thread is a shitbox

 

3 hours ago, jazzy said:

I'm stuck in the healthcare world here and have to pay like $10k/yr in insurance shit

Just wanted to say you got shit insurance if you paying 10k a year 

 

dont @ me

[Gentoo]

9 hours ago, jazzy said:

I mean he used the word "will"

Yes, the government is going to, but that isn't the bar for when people need a deterrent or exit plan. If the government COULD is what's important, which they can. It's fundamentally meant to be and universally considered a 'social contract', but it's not one you sign or choose to be a part of, it's one you get to tear up of the time calls.

 

9 hours ago, jazzy said:

I had wanted to bring this up in the last thread but it got locked but just my 2c on this whole thing is that it won't happen like you think it will happen. I think mentally people assume that it's "govt vs people" when never in the history of ever has that ever happened. Someone else brought up the whole "we can't ban guns cuz big fight" this was literally the whole problem with abolishing slavery, and everyone pussy footed around it to avoid the ensuring war that it just bubbled to the top and exploded. When civil war came nobody in the North, backed by the (real) federal government was saying "yeah we're the autho bad guys hehe." Everyone in the North fighting to abolish slaves (hurr durr states right) didn't feel authoritarian, but the South worked hard to paint them as such. And ultimately when the North won did the US government become an authoritarian regime? Not really.

Once again, it's not about is it going to, or has it happened before (it has), it's a fundamental necessity if the possibility exists, which it does, inherently. The most clear alternative to this perspective, the one I suppose you sympathize is "Yeah it could happen, but I think that's unlikely and it's worth risking the freedom of myself and the following generations of we can cut down on some of the violence right now." Fill me in if you have a more clear explanation.

 

9 hours ago, jazzy said:

Color me skeptical on this whole mental health discussion cuz I'm stuck in the healthcare world here and have to pay like $10k/yr in insurance shit and w/o insurance my drugs cost $13k/mo. Sir will you sign my petition on M4A? How about Medicaid/Medicare expansion in my state? My state still hasn't expanded Medicare/Medicaid, is it any surprise my state is red, and my governor spoke at the NRA convention?

Oh look everybody, the government is fucking him in the ass and there's nothing he can do about it!

 

9 hours ago, jazzy said:

I think someone mentioned it in another thread about how "it's a parenting problem." Which I totally agree with, but does anyone think the government can regulate parenting? More importantly, perhaps we could stop locking up people all the time and they might have some parents 

You have such a one track mind sometimes that it's insane. There's nothing you think that can be done that would increase the quality and effectiveness of parenting? Really?

 

Will update later, more to say, gotta finish chopping these onions

[jazzy]

53 minutes ago, Gentoo said:

Once again, it's not about is it going to, or has it happened before (it has), it's a fundamental necessity if the possibility exists, which it does, inherently. The most clear alternative to this perspective, the one I suppose you sympathize is "Yeah it could happen, but I think that's unlikely and it's worth risking the freedom of myself and the following generations of we can cut down on some of the violence right now." Fill me in if you have a more clear explanation.

I mean, yeah, that's my stance vs yours.

53 minutes ago, Gentoo said:

Oh look everybody, the government is fucking him in the ass and there's nothing he can do about it!

This is exactly my point from earlier, this whole "govt vs the people" doesn't end up like this. Americans have owned guns for 200+ years and it hasn't stopped anyone in government from fucking over people at certain times. Additionally, you fail to acknowledge the obvious fact. I am able to own a gun right now, and I'm being "fucked by the government." How would me having a gun help the situation? Should I hold up a pharmacy every 8 weeks for my next dose? I guess I'd probably get shot by one of those good guys with a gun tho.

55 minutes ago, Gentoo said:

You have such a one track mind sometimes that it's insane. There's nothing you think that can be done that would increase the quality and effectiveness of parenting? Really?

I literally said stop jailing people at the drop of the hat, for example. Who's got a one track mind?