Einstein was right, stupidity is infinite

[Bhav]

1 minute ago, AlwaysFSX said:

You shouldn't be scared of guns, you should be scared of your selected few fellow citizens that abuse their privileges. They're the problem, not guns. I respect guns, but not fear them. Just because someone else might abuse the privilege of owning a firearm does not mean everyone else has to have their right to own it taken away.

Banning guns has worked thus far for virtually eliminating gun related deaths in 100% of countries that have banned guns.

 

So yes, guns are the problem. Give an untrained human a gun, and right there is where you have a major public threat.

[MSWindowsinside]

All I have to say is: 'murica

[AlwaysFSX]

3 minutes ago, Bhav said:

Banning guns has worked thus far for virtually eliminating gun related deaths in 100% of countries that have banned guns.

 

So yes, guns are the problem. Give an untrained human a gun, and right there is where you have a major public threat.

Banning an object is incredibly naive and shows you don't know how to fix the root of the problem. There are still murders everywhere in the world in every single country, with or without guns. Your precious laws don't work.

[Bhav]

3 minutes ago, AlwaysFSX said:

Banning an object is incredibly naive and shows you don't know how to fix the root of the problem. There are still murders everywhere in the world in every single country, with or without guns. Your precious laws don't work.

Did you even bother to read the article I linked? Obviously not. Carry on being a 'murica patriot and continue enjoying your 30+ gun related deaths per day.

 

The gun control laws work in every. fucking. country. where. they. have. ever. been. applied. But nvm about the facts, GOOOOO 'MURICA!

[AlwaysFSX]

2 minutes ago, Bhav said:

Did you even bother to read the article I linked? Obviously not. Carry on being a 'murica patriot and continue enjoying your 30+ gun related deaths per day.

 

The gun control laws work in every. fucking. country. where. they. have. ever. been. applied. But nvm about the facts, GOOOOO 'MURICA!

It's because guns aren't the problem, the people using them are. How dense do you have to be to understand it's not the object to blame but the person using it? If someone wants you dead they're going to find a way to kill you. Stop being naive and actually understand a thing or two about identifying problems.

[Bhav]

2 minutes ago, AlwaysFSX said:

It's because guns aren't the problem, the people using them are. How dense do you have to be to understand it's not the object to blame but the person using it? If someone wants you dead they're going to find a way to kill you. Stop being naive and actually understand a thing or two about identifying problems.

The problem is obviously GUNS! As irrefutably proven in the article I linked. But carry on being ignorant and ignore the facts. Americans seem great at doing just that.

[AlwaysFSX]

Just now, Bhav said:

The problem is obviously GUNS! As irrefutably proven in the article I linked. 

No it's not. A sane person doesn't shoot someone, an insane person might. In both cases it's not up to the  gun to decide. You have an assbackwards view on the matter you obviously know nothing about. Most gun deaths happen in gang related violence, even if you ban every single firearm possible you're still not going to get rid of gun related death for that reason alone because as stated earlier in this thread, laws only work for those who follow them. Second, you have an absurd view of humanity if you're willing to ban an object that's been proven in the right hands not to be abused but rather blanket statement prove you view everyone as a child that doesn't know how to behave and not do something irrational. Just because you might not be able to does not mean the rest of us can't.

 

UK bans guns, still has murders with firearms. Obviously your laws aren't working.

[Omon_Ra]

2 hours ago, Bhav said:

Did you even bother to read the article I linked? Obviously not. Carry on being a 'murica patriot and continue enjoying your 30+ gun related deaths per day.

 

The gun control laws work in every. fucking. country. where. they. have. ever. been. applied. But nvm about the facts, GOOOOO 'MURICA!

 

I'll return to my 'ban tall buildings' metaphor; it is the same as your argument to ban guns. Most people can walk around tall structures just fine and not fall off and die. But there are some stupids who decide to take a selfie or engage in some other tom-foolery out on the edge and then fall to the ground and die. Or you have assholes who push people off of a tall structure. Or you have people who commit suicide by jumping off of bridges, buildings, cliffs, towers and lighthouses. I'm sure if everything we built was less than 2 stories, we'd have less suicides. Do we hold the architects, engineers, or even the building itself accountable? I understand your concern for innocent people dying by the hands of guns; it is tragic and unfortunate. But more education, not an outright ban (look how well the 'ban on drugs' works) will reduce gun violence. IMO, legalizing all drugs would do more to the violent crime statistics than pulling all the guns off of the streets. Like many things in America, guns are an easy scapegoat. After all they are inanimate objects and can't talk or defend themselves. Rather than look at the REAL problems that cause the violence in the first place; the sad state of mental (and really, overall) health care, our failing education system, economic inequality, and just general ignorance, Americans prefer to just point to a thing and say, 'That's the problem! BAN IT!' (See: Donald Trump's [former] stance on Muslims). It's a lot easier to place blame on a noun than understanding that freedom isn't free.*

 

The problem we (you, @AlwaysFSX and myself) are really arguing is a fundamental difference in individual responsibility, governance and self-determination. You prefer the government to take responsibility and 'protect the flock;' whereas AlwaysFSX (I'm assuming from your comments in this thread, correct me if I'm wrong) prefer the individuals to take responsibility for themselves. We can keep arguing back and forth, but that is the real issue here, not so much guns themselves.

 

 

 

 

* I'm sorry for that last sentence, I had to put it in there 

[Mug]

3 hours ago, AlwaysFSX said:

Banning an object is incredibly naive and shows you don't know how to fix the root of the problem.

If the root of the problem is the gun, surely by taking the gun away, you reduce the ability of the person to commit a murder thus reducing the murder rate.

 

 

I'd say that the rate would be decreased by a fair amount, wouldn't you?

If not, and you cannot accept this, at least accept that lives could be saved by increasing regulation of guns. In my opinion, even if one life could be saved, it's worth it. If people could see the lives and families in full then they'd see how devastating this is to America. Instead, the lives of people that have been lost as a direct consequence to a lack of gun legislation is merely just a statistic. Nobody has the ability to process the sheer scale of this problem.

It's not just normal people that suffer though, people with mental illness suffer too, look at this:

 

 

It is clear from this that even when you adjust for the overall suicide rate, you still have an overwhelming number of deaths extra from guns.

The underlying issue here is that guns make it easier to commit suicide. Why go to the effort of jumping off a bridge when you can set your own brain free without really thinking about it? I know that if I had had a gun in parts of my life, I wouldn't be alive myself.

 

The gun debate in America must only have one ending, the same ending that we saw in Australia. I can give you the stats on Australia banning guns too, the lowering of suicide rates and homicide rates is evident there.

 

Again, the argument is still "fuck off, I like guns" whcih is something I'm not going to question, the point I'm making is whether it is worth the deaths for you to have the privalage of owning a material item? Is your gun ownership worth lives?

 

[AlwaysFSX]

19 minutes ago, Mug said:

-snips-

Except the root of the problem isn't guns. They're a tool, that's it. I don't care if you don't like it, that's not a reason why I shouldn't have it. You have someone plow in to a crowd of people with a car killing dozens, you blame the driver, not the car. You have a stabbing, you blame the stabber, not the knife. You have someone get drugged you blame the person with the drugs, not the drugs themselves. Guns are the only object where you people think they're the reason all this happens when it's simply not. You ban guns you're not getting rid of murders. Many, many, many murders are committed with illegal guns. Most of the gun violence in America stems from gang violence. It is NOT just random violence that is going on everywhere. If someone wants to kill you they're going to kill you. Wah wah, boohoo, welcome to mentally deficient people in society.

 

On the topic of suicides with guns.. I.. don't care? If you want to commit suicide, you will. If you don't, you won't. That's not a violence related death so for being blunt, it shouldn't count because it's an unrelated matter.

 

The rest of us should not suffer because some guys decide to get in to an argument and shoot each other. The entire reason there's gun violence is because there's an education problem. Say what you want but humans are savages with the ability to think and act rationally even if you're holding a machine that can kill efficiently. Were people to make an effort in their communities to raise their children not to be violent pieces of shit we wouldn't have so many deaths.

 

Sure I agree that for the time being we're not going to be able to flip a switch and overnight people learn to how be intelligent all hours of the day so we should restrict who is able to own firearms. However, no, if I want a gun there's no reason why I shouldn't otherwise. As with my examples above, you should not place the consequences of the actions on the item, but rather the individual at fault. Taking away the direct consequences for someone's actions and blaming it on something else only leads people to believe it is impossible to be a rational human being and not harm others without consequence. I don't know if you think you and your peers are unable to handle firearms but that is not my problem and I should not have my privileges taken away simply because others are unable to be mature about the matters.

[Mug]

1 hour ago, AlwaysFSX said:

-

I reckon the argument on whether guns are inherently bad is a bit like the argument on whether drugs are inherently bad. I can find you a responsible drug user just as you can find me a responsible gun owner. Should the responsible drug user be criminalised and forced into the abyss of lawless urban backstreets because someone is an irrespnsible drug user and died accidentally? After all, drugs are just tools, right? Tools to have fun? Are guns fun? Yeah?

Hence why drugs are banned, one could argue that used responsibly and by trained people, they are loads of fun (like guns). Really, it is the drugs' fault that there are deaths due to drugs because without the drugs, the person would still be alive. Shock horror, there are more deaths due to drugs in neighborhoods where drug use is high compared to neighborhoods where drug use is low. Similarly, in states with relaxed laws, the deaths due to gun use is higher.

 

Deaths due to drugs are in the areas with larger posession of drugs

Spoiler

Deaths due to guns higher in regions with higher gun ownership

Spoiler

 

You addressed my stastistically-based arguments with annecdotal evidence and you clearly are putting your selfish desire to own a gun in front of people's lives. What you don't realise is that it isn't just the loonies that commit these offences, it could very well be you someday. The thing about crazy people is that they don't know they're crazy.

But who am I to say that guns are bad? The actual statistics speak for themselves.

[Omon_Ra]

16 hours ago, Mug said:

-snip-

It is very similar to the 'inherent evil' of drugs. And you know what the best method of reducing drug use is? EDUCATION, not prohibition. How is the drug war going? Has drug use declined? Look at Colorado and its recent legalization of marijuana. Opioid overdoses have dropped significantly, along with crime. Arguably, putting more weed in peoples' hands will do more for reducing overall violence than pulling all the guns off of the street.

 

Again, we're arguing a philosophical/fundamental difference between individual and governmental rights and regulations which can never really be reconciled without accepting that we all have our opinions, we're entitled to them, and we just have to live with each other. If you don't like guns, move to the UK or wherever they don't have guns. If you like guns, come to Budweiser America.

[laminutederire]

On Thursday, May 12, 2016 at 4:40 PM, AlwaysFSX said:

Banning an object is incredibly naive and shows you don't know how to fix the root of the problem. There are still murders everywhere in the world in every single country, with or without guns. Your precious laws don't work.

I think the point is we have more rarely mass murderer who go about schools and shoot everyone or do that at the batman diffusion at the theater.

Yes you can murder people with your bear hands but it isn't nearly as effective as a gun for killing multiple people, and that's why many countries ban them.

Also because in some cultures we think that the state has to protect us and that we aren't in a land where anyone can go about exacting his own sense of justice.

[AlwaysFSX]

2 hours ago, laminutederire said:

I think the point is we have more rarely mass murderer who go about schools and shoot everyone or do that at the batman diffusion at the theater.

Yes you can murder people with your bear hands but it isn't nearly as effective as a gun for killing multiple people, and that's why many countries ban them.

Also because in some cultures we think that the state has to protect us and that we aren't in a land where anyone can go about exacting his own sense of justice.

-That rarely happens here, but yes it does happen more often than other countries. However, that wouldn't be as much of a problem if we had stricter gun laws, not gun bans.

-Anyone that has half a brain cell can wreak havoc with a knife, they will always find a way. Note here.

-It's really only the rest of the world that pegs Americans as people with their own sense of justice, it's not the case here. We like the sport, we like hunting, and some of us live in sketchy area where a gun does provide protection. Nobody here goes around like Spiderman dishing out justice just because they have a gun. We're actually realistic about potential dangers and response time of the police.

[laminutederire]

28 minutes ago, AlwaysFSX said:

 

When I'm speaking about your sense of justice, it isn't at all about your movies, it is really more about the foreign politics of America, and America's military intervention, and America's point of view on a lot of things the world and especially Europe is going through (Especially Trump's comments).

[AlwaysFSX]

16 minutes ago, laminutederire said:

When I'm speaking about your sense of justice, it isn't at all about your movies, it is really more about the foreign politics of America, and America's military intervention, and America's point of view on a lot of things the world and especially Europe is going through (Especially Trump's comments).

Yet that has nothing to do with the citizens.

[laminutederire]

1 minute ago, AlwaysFSX said:

Yet that has nothing to do with the citizens.

Are you implying that the citizens don't have anything to do with the people they are voting for?

[BuckGup]

This is like drones. I am sure there are amazing drone pilots and marksmen but we have a large number of idiots who don't have any common sense. Besides a background check, which most places don't do, we should require a safety class or license that has made you go through a class and tests to make sure you know how to properly use and carry the weapon. Like that would change anything. Who really just shoots at someone to end an argument? All those people should play Russian roulette with a AR-15.

[Danger Warning]

I think fireguns should be restricted to those who have a specific professional purpose to use them. A firegun user should have an extensive background check, psychological tests, gun training and skill testing, as well as a professional licence. These would be done periodically, and revoked if any criminal or psychological situation arose, as long as it would be justified. I don't know what implications that would have regarding laws of ownership, or how that could be legally twisted.

[AlwaysFSX]

1 hour ago, laminutederire said:

Are you implying that the citizens don't have anything to do with the people they are voting for?

In a manner of speaking, yes. Don't twist my words but you can't exactly do much when everyone that runs for any kind of office is a corrupt piece of shit.

[AlwaysFSX]

1 hour ago, Keik + Tee said:

I think fireguns should be restricted to those who have a specific professional purpose to use them. A firegun user should have an extensive background check, psychological tests, gun training and skill testing, as well as a professional licence. These would be done periodically, and revoked if any criminal or psychological situation arose, as long as it would be justified. I don't know what implications that would have regarding laws of ownership, or how that could be legally twisted.

firegun?

 

lol

[Omon_Ra]

6 hours ago, AlwaysFSX said:

...some of us live in sketchy area where a gun does provide protection. Nobody here goes around like Spiderman dishing out justice just because they have a gun. We're actually realistic about potential dangers and response time of the police.

 

There are a LOT of people who live in areas in the US with minimal local law enforcement and depend on county sheriffs and state troopers. I had gotten into a car accident in high school (in Pennsylvania) and it took about 45 minutes for a state trooper to arrive. A game warden stopped by who happened to be on his way to work, but there's not much he could really do aside notify them; which by that point they already had been. I currently live in North Carolina where the Castle Doctrine has been changed within the past few years.

 

Quote

[It] presumes a person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a home, vehicle, or place of business intends to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence. The law also presumes a lawful occupant of a home, motor vehicle or workplace reasonably fears imminent death or serious bodily harm to himself, herself or another when using defensive force likely to cause death or serious injury if:

• The person against whom defensive force was used was unlawfully and forcefully entering or had already entered a motor vehicle, or workplace, or if the person had taken or was trying to take another person against his will from the home, motor vehicle or workplace;

• The person using defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

Call it legitimized vigilantism, but it's made things a lot clearer as far as your legal protections should you be in that situation.

 

5 hours ago, SamStrecker said:

 Besides a background check, which most places don't do, we should require a safety class or license that has made you go through a class and tests to make sure you know how to properly use and carry the weapon.

In North Carolina, to get your hunting license, you have to take a hunter's safety course. But a lot of gun owners don't hunt, nor is the hunter safety course all that great... I wish more people would actually take defensive pistol classes (most of the firearm-related deaths/injuries are from handguns, not the 'scary assault rifles'). It's all fine and dandy if you carry a pistol for self-defense, but how often do you actually train yourself to draw, aim and fire your weapon at close range under duress? What about preventing an attacker from getting your gun? People think they can just buy a gun and then that's all you need. The majority of defensive firearms discharges happen at extremely close quarters. And you're more than likely going to be involved physically in the first place. People don't think or realize the brutality of an ACTUAL event in which you would need to pull your weapon.

 

[laminutederire]

5 hours ago, AlwaysFSX said:

In a manner of speaking, yes. Don't twist my words but you can't exactly do much when everyone that runs for any kind of office is a corrupt piece of shit.

 

You can run for office instead of them?

 

All that which have arisen from the discussion is that there is an issue with education. But if all people were perfectly educated, what reason would there be for guns to exists?

[AlwaysFSX]

1 hour ago, laminutederire said:

You can run for office instead of them?

 

All that which have arisen from the discussion is that there is an issue with education. But if all people were perfectly educated, what reason would there be for guns to exists?

People wouldn't vote for me because I don't sugar coat things.

[AyeJayKay]

Ban spoons cuz they enable people to become fat. Ban cars cause they enable drunk drivers to crash. Retarded logic is retarded.