Gun Control

Most crime is apparently committed with handguns, and very little is actually done with semi-automatic rifles. Sure, someone going nuts might cause more damage with a semi-auto rifle, but not necessarily. Now I don't quite see what you'd need a mag-fed semi-auto rifle in .223 for since for home defense you'd rather have a shotgun or handgun and for hunting you don't really need your rifle to be self-loading or mag-fed, but on the other hand, if there's no real benefit in banning something, well, why ban it?
As AlphaPromethean said (and I also said numerous times), the guns in circulation in the US are already there. Extensive criminalization of ownership and massive buyback programs could potentially reduce ithe number, but not without seriously draconian government measures that nobody really wants.
The criminals will get their hands on weapons anyway. The psychos who want to shoot up a school will find a way, too. Gun violence is solved when the root causes are solved.
I think new restrictions on anything require a good cause. Americans had the right to own firearms. It needs a very good reason to take that right away, and taking rights away should always be the last option.
But I do think there need to better background checks, better tracking and registrations, and the closure of legal loopholes and focus on the black market.
 
AlphaPromethean said:
The reality is that firearms are a "Pandora's Box" within the United States. There is no going back. The idea of a total ban resulting in a firearm free country ala the United Kingdom is largely delusional, and I don't believe that Australian style buyback would gel with the culture surrounding firearms and firearm ownership in the United States, and whilst I could see a world in which such a policy experienced limited success, I believe it would be just that - limited.

That doesn't mean however successful policy couldn't be instituted. I think Switzerland is likely a model example of this, considering it's a country with a comparably robust gun culture yet has extremely limited amounts of gun crime. You could attribute this to the fact that Switzerland is just flat out a stronger country than the US when it comes to poverty and crime, but I also believe the sensible regulations on weapons there also play a large part.

Many of the Swiss policies - Localized bureaus specifically tasked with administrating and monitoring firearms and ownership in their areas, tracking and regulating ammunition, bureau issued permits for ownership, etc all seem like perfectly fine regulatory legislation that would gel fine with the United States (Permits acting within the 2nd Amendment by gatekeeping most types of firearms, but not all). Whilst automatic rifles are certainly a flagpole issue of gun crime in the US, I'd say it would probably be more beneficial over all to target those policies towards handgun ownership as well.

There is something to be said in that at least from my anecdotal experience, the United States has an (ironically) much more paranoid, fearful and "dangerous" culture towards guns compared to that of the Swiss. I can't imagine that sort of social mindset helps much, either.
Click to expand...
Exactly how would regulating guns and ammo "gel with" an Amendment meant to guarantee the human right to not have your guns and ammo "Regulated" by anyone, let alone the party of erosion and rot?
 
SilverStarApple/Epsilon7 said:
Exactly how would regulating guns and ammo "gel with" an Amendment meant to guarantee the human right to not have your guns and ammo "Regulated" by anyone, let alone the party of erosion and rot?
Click to expand...

I mean that the Swiss policies/approach would gel with the federal structure and localized governance of the United States. Also, gun ownership isn't a "Human right" and the Constitution is not a holy document. It is a wonderful document of liberal principles for sure, but the literal strict constructionism approach is foolish and IMO not the intended approach to the document in the first place. Considering far more important amendments are trampled upon actively every day, regulating firearms is really not a heretical approach.
 
The right to defend yourself is not equal to "It's a human right that I should have access to any and all firearms I want".
 
.223 Rifles don't over-penetrate through walls because the projectile is small and fast enough to disintegrate on impact.


People ban firearms yet fetishize the military and violent culture. Social control doesn't work that way.
 
AlphaPromethean said:
brainlet.jpg
Click to expand...
Listen, I get it, you think that since the NSA reads all your emails that you should just lay down and let The Man™ have his way with you while you close your eyes and think of all those pretty, pretty flowers. I mean what can you really do?
 
Post-War Tribal said:
I do. But how does that influence my opinion?
Click to expand...
How does knowledge influence your opinion? That's a good question, honestly. Because it seems like a lack of knowledge has influenced your opinion.

Banning guns won't remove them from the black market. Banning guns won't remove them from the country. Is the drug trade in the USA stopped by "The War on Drugs"? Is the Poaching industry in Africa stopped by anti-poaching laws?

No amount of laws will stop bad guys. Laws can punish bad guys for being bad. But laws won't stop them. Fear in the moment, fear of good men with guns, is why criminals prefer to prey on softer and weaker targets, AKA ones forced to disarm by people like you.

I wish you had the intelligence to recognize that you're wrong, and the maturity to admit it. No amount of sarcastic "hurr durr hello is this the based department? wanting guns banned isn't a heretical approach! omg you can't argue, what a brainlet" childishness from you will change reality.

Gun Control didn't help Chicago. Gun Control didn't help Venezuela. Gun Control didn't help any country that eventually got taken over by authoritarian dictators.

You know what Gun Control is good for? Authoritarians. It helped Hitler take over Germany, it helped the Communists take over Russia, it helped the Democrats take over Chicago, and it helped the Maoists take over China.

It's not an "extremist" thing to say gun rights are good, or speech rights are good, or the right to due process is good, or the right to not be tortured is good. Even though the modern era's extremists hate all four of those rights and more.

It's an extremist thing to say all gun rights should be banned just because some bad people misuse guns. It's a logical thing to say gunphobia like yours is a mental illness, and not a valid political position. Through doublethink, you might have convinced yourself that you only want gun rights restricted a little more this week. But if you have your way and the restrictions become worse, you won't be satisfied. You'll want gun rights restricted a little more the next week, and the next after that. A day will never come where you are satisfied and decide to turn on the left if they want humanity's rights restricted any further. If you have your way, more innocents will be disarmed, more innocents will die, and everyone's quality of life will be lowered. The world will become a less free place if you have your way. You might think getting your way will create a perfectly wonderful utopia for everyone, but people who support politicians that say "When the criminal realizes he is the only one with a gun, he will bin it and turn himself in" tend to think that sort of nonsense.

Now, I don't want you to get offended, or butthurt. You've thrown out some weak insults so far, so I hope you can handle a few stronger ones in return. I don't want to hurt your fragile leftist narcissistic ego. I don't want you to shatter like glass and cry foul and beg for me to be banned, as lefties tend to do when confronted with facts. So please, watch some nice little cartoons that will help you understand more about the real world. Maybe when you're done, you'll understand why I am objectively correct in wanting back what your party eroded, stole, and destroyed.



 
TL;DR

6f0.jpg
 
SilverStarApple/Epsilon7 said:
How does knowledge influence your opinion? That's a good question, honestly. Because it seems like a lack of knowledge has influenced your opinion.

Banning guns won't remove them from the black market. Banning guns won't remove them from the country. Is the drug trade in the USA stopped by "The War on Drugs"? Is the Poaching industry in Africa stopped by anti-poaching laws?

No amount of laws will stop bad guys. Laws can punish bad guys for being bad. But laws won't stop them. Fear in the moment, fear of good men with guns, is why criminals prefer to prey on softer and weaker targets, AKA ones forced to disarm by people like you.

I wish you had the intelligence to recognize that you're wrong, and the maturity to admit it. No amount of sarcastic "hurr durr hello is this the based department? wanting guns banned isn't a heretical approach! omg you can't argue, what a brainlet" childishness from you will change reality.

Gun Control didn't help Chicago. Gun Control didn't help Venezuela. Gun Control didn't help any country that eventually got taken over by authoritarian dictators.

You know what Gun Control is good for? Authoritarians. It helped Hitler take over Germany, it helped the Communists take over Russia, it helped the Democrats take over Chicago, and it helped the Maoists take over China.

It's not an "extremist" thing to say gun rights are good, or speech rights are good, or the right to due process is good, or the right to not be tortured is good. Even though the modern era's extremists hate all four of those rights and more.

It's an extremist thing to say all gun rights should be banned just because some bad people misuse guns. It's a logical thing to say gunphobia like yours is a mental illness, and not a valid political position. Through doublethink, you might have convinced yourself that you only want gun rights restricted a little more this week. But if you have your way and the restrictions become worse, you won't be satisfied. You'll want gun rights restricted a little more the next week, and the next after that. A day will never come where you are satisfied and decide to turn on the left if they want humanity's rights restricted any further. If you have your way, more innocents will be disarmed, more innocents will die, and everyone's quality of life will be lowered. The world will become a less free place if you have your way. You might think getting your way will create a perfectly wonderful utopia for everyone, but people who support politicians that say "When the criminal realizes he is the only one with a gun, he will bin it and turn himself in" tend to think that sort of nonsense.

Now, I don't want you to get offended, or butthurt. You've thrown out some weak insults so far, so I hope you can handle a few stronger ones in return. I don't want to hurt your fragile leftist narcissistic ego. I don't want you to shatter like glass and cry foul and beg for me to be banned, as lefties tend to do when confronted with facts. So please, watch some nice little cartoons that will help you understand more about the real world. Maybe when you're done, you'll understand why I am objectively correct in wanting back what your party eroded, stole, and destroyed.



Click to expand...

I told it was my opinion. Not thé opinion. Why're u so defensive?
 
Post-War Tribal said:
I told it was my opinion. Not thé opinion. Why're u so defensive?
Click to expand...
Oh great, this avenue of personal attack. *Rolls eyes*

When you attack my fundamental human rights, and I judge you for that and politely explain why it is wrong, do you really have the right to call me defensive?

Then again, I wouldn't raise an eyebrow if you called me anything else. I don't respect you or care what you have to say about me. At this point, I'd be surprised if one of you could go a week without calling me names. The anti-gun argument is one motivated by spite and "informed" by misinformation. You've been convinced gun ownership causes gun crime, you've been convinced gun crime is an epidemic that needs solving fast, and you've been convinced the only way to solve it is to vote in leftist politicians. You're being played like a violin. Did voting in leftist politicians help Chicago, or contribute to its ruin?
 
SilverStarApple/Epsilon7 said:
Oh great, this avenue of personal attack. *Rolls eyes*

When you attack my fundamental human rights, and I judge you for that and politely explain why it is wrong, do you really have the right to call me defensive?

Then again, I wouldn't raise an eyebrow if you called me anything else. I don't respect you or care what you have to say about me. At this point, I'd be surprised if one of you could go a week without calling me names. The anti-gun argument is one motivated by spite and "informed" by misinformation. You've been convinced gun ownership causes gun crime, you've been convinced gun crime is an epidemic that needs solving fast, and you've been convinced the only way to solve it is to vote in leftist politicians. You're being played like a violin. Did voting in leftist politicians help Chicago, or contribute to its ruin?
Click to expand...

You're very insecure aren't you?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wall_of_text
Michael Moore for president.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top