Support NeoGAF

[adarker]

Holy shit all of you are fools! Can't wait to give up your freedoms! We have more guns! It's just the US! Paris was a mirage! And the reason mass shooting happen so much is BECAUSE OF GUN CONTROL!!!! They hit areas with strict gun control laws! Fuck, wake up morons! They call them soft targets FOR A REASON!!!!

I have seen some silly shit on here but this takes the cake! All of you are so delusional about the world and how things work that it makes me sad that so many of you exist.

Can someone please ban me so I'm not tempted to come back to this cesspool of ignorance and stupidity.

 

[appaws]

This is the deflection point to begin the argument. Right off the bat. Because being a statist or anti-statist may have tangential crossover with the gun control/anti-gun control set, but one could easily favor heavy gun control and be an anti-statist. As a result, this is a distraction that has no real merit for this argument. It is already an attempt to set terms. "Well I'm never going to win this argument because you guys believe X (even though "X" doesn't necessarily mean you believe "Y"), but I'll answer anyway so be easy..."



It's not a check at all. You will not win your fight against the united states government. And there is no risk at all of the United States government turning into a Civil War state in your life time. None. Now, you will say there is no way for I to know for sure, and you're right - technically. Just like I cannot say for sure that the Yosemite Super Volcano won't erupt tomorrow. It's just that statistically, it's so unlikely as to be comical to even consider it in an evaluation of how to judge day to day policy.

In short, you're a paranoid conspiracy theorist and at least borderline libertarian who has trouble distinguishing between real threats and fake ones.



Here's where you mention really horrible events that have no possibility of ever occurring in the United States in the next one hundred years save some sort of nuclear holocaust war that makes us all scavengers and hunters again (in which case, the last thing you'll have to worry about is the state having control of all the guns), and then expect us to go "oh snap he's right what IF we get a Hitler that tries to round up all the jews in a ghetto! They will need their guns!"

Of course, the people in the Warsaw Ghetto didn't have their guns because the state made it legal for jews to own guns. They had to carefully smuggle their guns in. And they lost anyway. Because they weren't going to win against the German government. Most of them all died.

It's an amazing, inspiring story. But not one element of it supports your argument. You just quoted it because it sounded nice. Like most of your argument, it's all kiddie pool deep.



Your right to "protect" yourself is not the same right as making the entire country immeasurably more dangerous because you want to jerk off to gun porn. Statistically, there is no debate - your gun does not make you safer, but far, far less safe. That's a fact. No argument you ever make can defeat those hard and cold statistics.

So just accept that your nearly fanatical desire for "individual liberty" in all cases means that you have to allow incredibly horrific things to happen so that you can rip out your checklist and smile when you realize that your nonsense ideology is being satisfied.

I'm not even sure what you are saying I "quoted" or what "story" I told. I'm confused.

Yes, you are right...I do know I am not going to win an argument with statists...so I guess I am setting terms. Luckily outside of the utopian bubble, most people are not willing to surrender their human rights to some promise of safety.

Horrific things happen, and most of them are at the hands of the state.

I still want you to tell me that the Viet Minh, ANC, and the people of colonial Africa were "jerking off to gun porn" and would have been better off disarmed.

 

[TheTurboFD]

...yeah that can be an asterix in the data set is there a constant state of emergency going on in all of mexico now? and what are the gun ownership rights there , is the poplulace legally able to arm themselves or not?

Very very strict gun laws is what they have. Funny right?

 

[RedFyn]

There is too much "I'll never give up muh guns!! Obama can pry them from my cold dead hands" going on, when in fact no one is advocating for completely taking guns away. Well at least from your average citizen.

That's not true though. PBY specifically has been advocating that in both this thread and the San Bernardino thread. He's not the only one either.

 

[Jonm1010]

I'm not even sure what you are saying I "quoted" or what "story" I told. I'm confused.

Yes, you are right...I do know I am not going to win an argument with statists...so I guess I am setting terms. Luckily outside of the utopian bubble, most people are not willing to surrender their human rights to some promise of safety.

Horrific things happen, and most of them are at the hands of the state.

I still want you to tell me that the Viet Minh, ANC, and the people of colonial Africa were "jerking off to gun porn" and would have been better off disarmed.

Most people in the civilized and non-civilized world have in fact decided that access to means of self defense and weaponry is not a panacea or should be treated as a god given right. Even in this country. You sir are actually the outlier.

 

[Frog-fu]

This is why dumbasses are against gun control.

 

[Jonm1010]

Holy shit all of you are fools! Can't wait to give up your freedoms! We have more guns! It's just the US! Paris was a mirage! And the reason mass shooting happen so much is BECAUSE OF GUN CONTROL!!!! They hit areas with strict gun control laws! Fuck, wake up morons! They call them soft targets FOR A REASON!!!!

I have seen some silly shit on here but this takes the cake! All of you are so delusional about the world and how things work that it makes me sad that so many of you exist.

Can someone please ban me so I'm not tempted to come back to this cesspool of ignorance and stupidity.

Try making an actual argument instead of all caps attacks and ad hominems. If that sort of rhetoric you are spewing is what you consider to be intelligent and informed I think you have the roles switched.

 

[Jonm1010]

I was interested in the OP's question, so I decided to actually go look for a pro-gun op-ed in an actual conservative source (rather than relying on a bunch of two-sentence NeoGAF posts, which no doubt represent the position of the other side as fairly and accurately as possible).

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/427905/mass-shootings-gun-control

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/427967/san-bernardino-shooting-guns-homicide-statistics

The second link in particular seems to be as strong an argument against gun control as you're likely to find:




I'm not at all sure I buy it. I have no love for guns myself, and no real principled objection to gun control. I certainly hope that gun control works to reduce the homicide rate. But I would say that if you want stricter gun control, the second link here is the argument to beat, so to speak.

Anyway, there you go. An actual conservative's argument, if you want to read it.

Well off the bat, to make the case that there are no correlation is, well, profoundly stupid. There are a TON.

Perhaps the author meant there is no actual proven causation? And only within his chosen data? Because otherwise he is just showing an ignorance of the available data. IDK.

 

[Saucy_XL]

Holy shit all of you are fools! Can't wait to give up your freedoms! We have more guns! It's just the US! Paris was a mirage! And the reason mass shooting happen so much is BECAUSE OF GUN CONTROL!!!! They hit areas with strict gun control laws! Fuck, wake up morons! They call them soft targets FOR A REASON!!!!

I have seen some silly shit on here but this takes the cake! All of you are so delusional about the world and how things work that it makes me sad that so many of you exist.

Can someone please ban me so I'm not tempted to come back to this cesspool of ignorance and stupidity.

Don't worry, GAF has a less naunced opinion on gun control/rights than most people I've met. They aren't representative of most of the population.

 

[appaws]

Most people in the civilized and non-civilized world have in fact decided that access to means of self defense and weaponry is not a panacea or should be treated as a god given right. Even in this country. You sir are actually the outlier.

I can't argue with that. I know I am.

Liberty is a very abstract thing to most people. They are often willing to surrender it when they are told it is for their own good.

 

[FyreWulff]

I'll pick out one of the reasons: people falsely believe it keeps the government in check.

People seem to edit out the fact that there hasn't been a single successful case of that happening. We even had a Civil War break out. The government still won, and that was with a war where the general citizenry had arms on parity with the military, and caught the union off-guard (our generals were so out of battle condition that one was too fat to ride his horse and had to turn down the offer to lead the Union army).

We haven't been at weapon parity since World War 2.

The government has planes, jets, world best training, ships that can fire on you without you even being able to see them from the shore powered by nuclear reactors that won't need to come back to shore to get fuel, military bases in every state that they can move between in minutes using cargo and transport planes.

The military never let itself get complacent like it did right before the Civil War ever again.

The idea that any citizen group could even hold territory for more than 24 hours without getting their shit pushed through a pasta strainer is nothing more than self-insert science fiction.

Within the first hour of a 'war', the military could take out every useful bridge in the United States with zero casualties just to cut off any group's ability to move around. Most of us non-combat civilians would choose the US Military to side with, lol

 

[BrokenIcarus]

Holy shit all of you are fools! Can't wait to give up your freedoms! We have more guns! It's just the US! Paris was a mirage! And the reason mass shooting happen so much is BECAUSE OF GUN CONTROL!!!! They hit areas with strict gun control laws! Fuck, wake up morons! They call them soft targets FOR A REASON!!!!

I have seen some silly shit on here but this takes the cake! All of you are so delusional about the world and how things work that it makes me sad that so many of you exist.

Can someone please ban me so I'm not tempted to come back to this cesspool of ignorance and stupidity.

This is gold!

 

[Jonm1010]

I can't argue with that. I know I am.

Liberty is a very abstract thing to most people. They are often willing to surrender it when they are told it is for their own good.

Liberty is not intrinsically tied to your easy access to guns. Unless you are taking liberty to mean a very specific meaning. Or only consider certain things that would be considered liberty and not others. In fact one could argue that the wide prevalence of easy access to weapons of death have done more to encroach greater aspects of personal liberty then anything.

With more guns comes more gun violence and gun crime which infringes on my liberty to not be murdered, threatened, assaulted or just feel safe.

Furthermore you still have failed to address my earlier post, or more importantly how you presume that the right to self defense is seemingly inseparable from the right to own any means of self defense.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

Because many times the gun control laws are implemented for political reasons by people that don't know jack shit about how law abiding (I know...I know) citizens utilize firearms responsibly.

See NYS and their 7 round magazine limit that was struck down. Or their ammunition background check system that they had to shelve because it was absolutely unfeasible to implement.

That being said gun owners need to step up and suggest good legislation from their perspective other than 'moar guns'.

Other than that many people consider gun control legislation a trojan horse of incrementalism that will culminate in the eventual removal of a civilian right to own firearms. Rhetoric by anti-gun people helps feed into this. Definitely an "us vs them" mentality on this issue unfortunately. Just entrenches both sides with no ability to progress.

Furthermore you still have failed to address my earlier post, or more importantly how you presume that the right to self defense is seemingly inseparable from the right to own any means of self defense.

Firearms are generally the primary means of and most efficient form of personal self defense when the objective is to stop an unjustified attack on ones person by a single and especially multiple attackers. It also do so regardless of the defenders size unlike direct physical force using a melee object.

The right to self defense is absolutely useless without the means to do so. What viably alternative do you propose? Bat? Machete? Taser? Duty to retreat even in the home?

 

[Jonm1010]

Because many times the gun control laws are implemented for political reasons by people that don't know jack shit about how law abiding (I know...I know) citizens utilize firearms responsibly.

See NYS and their 7 round magazine limit that was struck down. Or their ammunition background check system that they had to shelve because it was absolutely unfeasible to implement.

That being said gun owners need to step up and suggest good legislation from their perspective other than 'moar guns'.

Other than that many people consider gun control legislation a trojan horse of incrementalism that will culminate in the eventual removal of a civilian right to own firearms. Rhetoric by anti-gun people helps feed into this. Definitely an "us vs them" mentality on this issue unfortunately. Just entrenches both sides with no ability to progress.

That excuse can be used for pretty much every piece of legislation ever. Not that you are endorsing it but just worth pointing out.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

That excuse can be used for pretty much every piece of legislation ever. Not that you are endorsing it but just worth pointing out.

Possibly. But many people have the view that the government wants to disarm all americans and are playing the long game. Personally I have absolute zero trust or faith in government. They don't give two shits about my best interests. They only serve their needs. Even when they do something that appears to be benevolent it always serves their needs. A safe and provided people are a dependent people.

But I think our governments are also pragmatic. They can't do shit until people generally agree especially on specifics. It's one thing to say "a majority of americans including gun owners want legislation to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and mentally ill" but it's another thing entirely to say "a majority of america including gun owners approve and agree that "X" legislation will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and mentally ill without an undue burden on legal law abiding (I know...I know...) gun owners.

 

[Jonm1010]

Possibly. But many people have the view that the government wants to disarm all americans and are playing the long game. Personally I have absolute zero trust or faith in government. They don't give two shits about my best interests. They only serve their needs. Even when they do something that appears to be benevolent it always serves their needs. A safe and provided people are a dependent people.

But I think our governments are also pragmatic. They can't do shit until people generally agree especially on specifics. It's one thing to say "a majority of americans including gun owners want legislation to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and mentally ill" but it's another thing entirely to say "a majority of america including gun owners approve and agree that "X" legislation will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and mentally ill without an undue burden on legal law abiding (I know...I know...) gun owners.

So you are sympathizing with the argument. Well then, you are being irrational.

The government is you. We are a democracy. Or better yet a constitutionally limited democratic republic.

They aren't some authoritarian regime with no influence by the citizenry.

Your rationale is the equivalent of saying that because some people may advocate for the government to criminally punish anyone that speaks out against gay marriage, therefore you don't want to support gay marriage because it will inevitably lead to the government criminalizing anyone who says they don't believe in gay marriage. Its just ludicrous from where the reality is on the manner.

 

[BPoole]

This is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IHz4jVurBE

 

[Mammoth Jones]

So you are sympathizing with the argument. Well then, you are being irrational.

Painting anyone that might have a viewpoint you disagree with as irrational is a shitty way to engage in discussion.

The government is you. We are a democracy. Or better yet a constitutionally limited democratic republic.

We're an Oligarchy. The rest is a sugar coated topping.

They aren't some authoritarian regime with no influence by the citizenry.

My people only had freedom since 1968. Authoritarian regime sounds accurate to me.

Your rationale is the equivalent of saying that because some people may advocate for the government to criminally punish anyone that speaks out against gay marriage, therefore you don't want to support gay marriage because it will inevitably lead to the government criminalizing anyone who says they don't believe in gay marriage. Its just ludicrous from where the reality is on the manner.

My rationale is that government does tons of shady shit for its own benefit and will continue to do tons of shady shit for its own benefit. We the people are a resource to be managed and exploited.

 

[Jonm1010]

Painting anyone that might have a viewpoint you disagree with as irrational is a shitty way to engage in discussion.

Believing a slippery slope fallacy is factually speaking irrational.

We're an Oligarchy. The rest is a sugar coated topping.

Not factually true again. And even if we take your premise it doesnt support the notions you are spouting. The current state of the government is one far away from banning guns. In fact the opposite is true. Gun laws across the country have gotten more lax overall, not more so. So the notion you speak of is even more preposterous.

If we were to take your premise and reverse it and apply it to the current trend, which is laxer gun laws, shouldn't we see this creep have already led to a full on repeal of every single gun control legislation everywhere?

My people only had freedom since 1968. Authoritarian regime sounds accurate to me.



My rationale is that government does tons of shady shit for its own benefit and will continue to do tons of shady shit for its own benefit. We the people are a resource to be managed and exploited.

Again, the government is you. Your vote still changes things. It is not an autonomous creature thats only concern is to destroy and exploit you. If you truly believe that why aren't you advocating anarchy? The system is corrupted and not operating ideally but it also isnt despotic or completely unresponsive.

 

[philz]

This.

They don't even have to take guns. They could just turn off the entire power grid or raise taxes by 1000%.

Couldn't they just raise taxes 1,000% 200 years ago?

 

[philz]

if people really think that owning guns is going to 'protect us from the government', then they are probably living in a different world.

and if you really think the government needs to 'take yer gunzz' first before oppressing you, then you really are in another world.

Saying "the government can and will fuck you just as hard with or without guns" oddly isn't doing as much to dispel the idea that people should have guns as a check on government power as I think you think it is.

 

[nynt9]

Holy shit all of you are fools! Can't wait to give up your freedoms! We have more guns! It's just the US! Paris was a mirage! And the reason mass shooting happen so much is BECAUSE OF GUN CONTROL!!!! They hit areas with strict gun control laws! Fuck, wake up morons! They call them soft targets FOR A REASON!!!!

I have seen some silly shit on here but this takes the cake! All of you are so delusional about the world and how things work that it makes me sad that so many of you exist.

Can someone please ban me so I'm not tempted to come back to this cesspool of ignorance and stupidity.

This can't be serious... can it?

 

[Amir0x]

I'm not even sure what you are saying I "quoted" or what "story" I told. I'm confused.

The "story" is not something that didn't happen - it was the Warsaw Ghetto uprising you mentioned. The problem is that it does not fit your narrative, just like most of those examples don't. It's a bit like a sleight of hand, you make people look that way because it's easy to empathize with how these people fought back, but no aspect of these scenarios actually support the gun ownership position. In these cases listed, the laws in regards to gun ownership had no relationship whatsoever with how these events turned out.

You can't just list an example in which someone had to fight back using guns as proof of the necessity of absolute gun ownership liberty if none of the facts actually support your case.

Yes, you are right...I do know I am not going to win an argument with statists...so I guess I am setting terms. Luckily outside of the utopian bubble, most people are not willing to surrender their human rights to some promise of safety.

It has nothing to do with statists or anti-statists. For example, I support extremely strict gun control because literally every available statistic says it makes people safer, full stop. Yet I support absolute liberty for drug legalization, because countries which have opened up their drug laws have seen incredible improvements. There is no statistic pr talking point for you except "what if some crazy conspiracy actually came true, I could shoot bullets at tanks and nuclear weapons and winz against the US government!!!111" in which you could argue otherwise. So in essence, you're willing to trade literally hundreds of thousands of innocent lives for a scenario which has almost no chance of occurring.

You'd make the worst gambler ever - trade an almost sure bet (true safety, as every country with strict gun control shows, and literally nearly all of them don't require revolutions for most of the years of their existence) for something that makes everyone infinitely more likely to die every second of every day but might, in some abstract 0.0000000000000001% chance, make you safer at some nebulous point in the future that you and I both know is never going to happen but is a convenient scapegoat for you avoiding simply saying "I want to own guns because I love them and believe ideology is a good exchange for practical laws."

I mean just look at how laughably off point you are. Utopian bubble? No, sir, you see I look at the world and actually follow what the facts show me. That means I know strict gun control indisputably makes you safer. That's not living in a Utopian bubble, that's understanding guns are incredibly dangerous and most people do not deserve to own them. Not because they inherently should be deprived of liberty, but because most people genuinely do not have the appropriate level of understanding or training to own guns whilst also keeping those around them safe from them. As the United States demonstrates every fucking single day.

In any event, if people are that obsessed with keeping them, at the very least the government needs a complete registry of every gun and owner in this country, and should force everyone who desires a gun to complete a rigorous training program at your cost like some countries already do (with great success at reducing gun deaths, once again). That's the very least of what we should be considering doing, because your "individual liberty" does not give you a right to make everyone less likely to hold onto their liberty, life and happiness.

Horrific things happen, and most of them are at the hands of the state.

Oh dear christ. This is not only incredibly tone deaf considering what has just happened, but it does not even attempt to resolve the point raised. This is sheer ideology once again masquerading as a legitimate point.

I still want you to tell me that the Viet Minh, ANC, and the people of colonial Africa were "jerking off to gun porn" and would have been better off disarmed.

I already went over why this is a feeble attempt to defend your position by using the Warsaw Ghetto. If you like, I can go through each of these historic examples and deconstruct why they don't fit your narrative, but we'll just end up at the same exact place since they don't fit your friggin' narrative in the same way the Warsaw Ghetto one didn't.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

Believing a slippery slope fallacy is factually speaking irrational.


Not factually true again. And even if we take your premise it doesnt support the notions you are spouting. The current state of the government is one far away from banning guns. In fact the opposite is true. Gun laws across the country have gotten more lax overall, not more so. So the notion you speak of is even more preposterous.

If we were to take your premise and reverse it and apply it to the current trend, which is laxer gun laws, shouldn't we see this creep have already led to a full on repeal of every single gun control legislation everywhere?




Again, the government is you. Your vote still changes things. It is not an autonomous creature thats only concern is to destroy and exploit you. If you truly believe that why aren't you advocating anarchy? The system is corrupted and not operating ideally but it also isnt despotic or completely unresponsive.

Let's agree to disagree. You're not going to change my mind and I'm not going to change yours. I'll never believe government is my buddy and only cares about my best interests. I've read too many history books.

 

[Link]

Don't worry, GAF has a less naunced opinion on gun control/rights than most people I've met. They aren't representative of most of the population.

And you felt his was a nuanced opinion?

 

[HyperionX]

My people only had freedom since 1968. Authoritarian regime sounds accurate to me.

My rationale is that government does tons of shady shit for its own benefit and will continue to do tons of shady shit for its own benefit. We the people are a resource to be managed and exploited.

If it wasn't for the government as it exists now, your current state would be closer to slavery rather than merely whining about only being free since 1968.

The rest of your posts are basically espousing the generic Libertarian argument. Basically, that the government is something to be feared and mistrusted at all levels, with little or no understanding of the benefits it provides. I'm sure many posters can quickly point out how simplistic and naive this is.

 

[appaws]

The "story" is not something that didn't happen - it was the Warsaw Ghetto uprising you mentioned. The problem is that it does not fit your narrative, just like most of those examples don't. It's a bit like a sleight of hand, you make people look that way because it's easy to empathize with how these people fought back, but no aspect of these scenarios actually support the gun ownership position. In these cases listed, the laws in regards to gun ownership had no relationship whatsoever with how these events turned out.

You can't just list an example in which someone had to fight back using guns as proof of the necessity of absolute gun ownership liberty if none of the facts actually support your case.

It has nothing to do with statists or anti-statists. For example, I support extremely strict gun control because literally every available statistic says it makes people safer, full stop. Yet I support absolute liberty for drug legalization, because countries which have opened up their drug laws have seen incredible improvements. There is no statistic pr talking point for you except "what if some crazy conspiracy actually came true, I could shoot bullets at tanks and nuclear weapons and winz against the US government!!!111" in which you could argue otherwise. So in essence, you're willing to trade literally hundreds of thousands of innocent lives for a scenario which has almost no chance of occurring.

You'd make the worst gambler ever - trade an almost sure bet (true safety, as every country with strict gun control shows, and literally nearly all of them don't require revolutions for most of the years of their existence) for something that makes everyone infinitely more likely to die every second of every day but might, in some abstract 0.0000000000000001% chance, make you safer at some nebulous point in the future that you and I both know is never going to happen but is a convenient scapegoat for you avoiding simply saying "I want to own guns because I love them and believe ideology is a good exchange for practical laws."

I mean just look at how laughably off point you are. Utopian bubble? No, sir, you see I look at the world and actually follow what the facts show me. That means I know strict gun control indisputably makes you safer. That's not living in a Utopian bubble, that's understanding guns are incredibly dangerous and most people do not deserve to own them. Not because they inherently should be deprived of liberty, but because most people genuinely do not have the appropriate level of understanding or training to own guns whilst also keeping those around them safe from them. As the United States demonstrates every fucking single day.

In any event, if people are that obsessed with keeping them, at the very least the government needs a complete registry of every gun and owner in this country, and should force everyone who desires a gun to complete a rigorous training program at your cost like some countries already do (with great success at reducing gun deaths, once again). That's the very least of what we should be considering doing, because your "individual liberty" does not give you a right to make everyone less likely to hold onto their liberty, life and happiness.

Oh dear christ. This is not only incredibly tone deaf considering what has just happened, but it does not even attempt to resolve the point raised. This is sheer ideology once again masquerading as a legitimate point.

I already went over why this is a feeble attempt to defend your position by using the Warsaw Ghetto. If you like, I can go through each of these historic examples and deconstruct why they don't fit your narrative, but we'll just end up at the same exact place since they don't fit your friggin' narrative in the same way the Warsaw Ghetto one didn't.

First of all, I don't care about being what you call "tone deaf." All the individual mass shooters in the history of the world cannot ever equal the evil and terror carried out in the name of the state. Millions and millions have been murdered by the state even within the past century, even in the so-called civilized world. You are "tone deaf" to that reality every time you argue for our benevolent overlords to take away individual rights we don't "deserve."

Low-tech insurgencies have "winz" against the U.S. government. Why do you act like that is a sheer impossibility? It has happened several times in recent memory.

Also, it has everything to do with statists and anti-statists, despite your (correct) view on drug legalization. By definition, someone who believes in stripping the American public of their human right to be armed is a statist, no matter what their views on every other issue, because they support giving the state a monopoly on violence.

 

[Prosopon]

.

 

[Amir0x]

First of all, I don't care about being what you call "tone deaf." All the individual mass shooters in the history of the world cannot ever equal the evil and terror carried out in the name of the state. Millions and millions have been murdered by the state even within the past century, even in the so-called civilized world. You are "tone deaf" to that reality every time you argue for our benevolent overlords to take away individual rights we don't "deserve."

Quite obviously you wouldn't care. After all, if you can't be arsed to care about how many innocents die at the hands of gun owners in this country (which could be saved with strict gun control), why would you care about how disgustingly insulting and offensive you are in other ways? You wanted me to be surprised or something?

I mean again, you're like a fucking posting illusionists with the way you make your arguments. Millions of people have died at the hands of their governments over history - it's only been a few hundreds years since enlightenment and guns even existed, and even if you consider every era in human history most of those governments were not put down by their people but by entire other governments fighting them. So once more, individual gun ownership laws have nothing to do with the vast majority of cases you would list. It is once more a sleight of hand meant to sound good on paper but said with close to no forethought.

Low-tech insurgencies have "winz" against the U.S. government. Why do you act like that is a sheer impossibility? It has happened several times in recent memory.

No, they didn't. At least not in the way you're actually going to want to be the case in the event the US government tried to come at its people. We didn't really lose those fights you're surely referencing - we simply lost the will of the people to continue indefinitely supporting those wars, because we could have kept going. We could have dropped a nuke and decimated them all if we were evil enough (and of course we're not, because the US government is not inherently worthy of distrust anymore than you are - or put another way, you are just as untrustworthy as the government is). Yet strict gun control for you means I'm safer, and strict gun control for the government would not mean that. In any actual fight where the government came at its people, it'd be a fight for its very survival. Quite unlike any other war you'd possibly be referencing here. So the tactics and extremes they'd go to in order to win would obviously be significantly more serious, especially since if it had actually got to that point, something must have gone terribly wrong in our government in the first place. Your guns would not help you survive, and so all your nonsense about gun ownership would end with you dead anyway.

Thus again, there is not actually any real world argument to be made that this individual liberty is sacrosanct. So far your entire argument is basically "what if the government comes at me, I don't trust the government so gimme my guns!" That is quite literally every inch of your argument summarized, except you gussy it up with nonsense examples that have nothing at all to do with what you're trying to defend.

Why don't you wade out of that kiddy pool and actually try to counter any of the points I'm making that have to, ya know, do with the real world and not abstract alternative realities in which all conspiracies come true and we are actually on the cusp of a US Civil War?

Also, it has everything to do with statists and anti-statists, despite your (correct) view on drug legalization. By definition, someone who believes in stripping the American public of their human right to be armed is a statist, no matter what their views on every other issue, because they support giving the state a monopoly on violence.

Gun ownership isn't a human right. Being able to stay alive in peace is.

 

[appaws]

No, they didn't. At least not in the way you're actually going to want to be the case in the event the US government tried to come at its people. We didn't really lose those fights you're surely referencing - we simply lost the will of the people to continue indefinitely supporting those wars, because we could have kept going. .

Yes, this is exactly my point. I never said anything about insurgents winning straight up battles with the U.S. government. Insurgency is meant to drag things out and sap the will of the population "back home" to make the sacrifices necessary to continue the war. Yes, the U.S. could have stayed in Vietnam or the Soviets could have stayed in Afghanistan. But they didn't. They lost. We lost. The insurgents won. It is possible.

I don't feel like breaking down and responding to your entire post because your tone has become accusatory and borderline insulting. I prefer discussion to remain friendly. Congrats, you win the internet.

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
William Pitt (1708 - 1778)

 

[Silent Chief]

Almost all those guns are made in USA. Are you trying to put honest people out of a job?

 

[Jisgsaw]

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
William Pitt (1708 - 1778)

Just to be sure: how do you feel about patriot act?
About taxes?
About laws?
About flight policies?
About road rules?

The moment you decide to live in a democracy, you end up giving up some of your liberties. "Your personal freedom stops where the freedom of another begins" is the basis of the democratic system (and frankly, every sane community that ever worked).

 

[Tertullian]

That's a pretty unbelievable set of events. Harvard is not some progressive bastion that is run on partisan political money.

Are you suggesting that academics are not powerfully influenced by progressive political ideology? Or are you suggesting that a college which started to publish anti-gun-control journal articles would not be harshly criticized and ostracized by other colleges, academics, and progressives? Because both of those things seem obviously true to me.

Well off the bat, to make the case that there are no correlation is, well, profoundly stupid. There are a TON.

Perhaps the author meant there is no actual proven causation? And only within his chosen data? Because otherwise he is just showing an ignorance of the available data. IDK.

The NRO article's claim seems pretty clear to me. It's saying that there is no simple correlation between gun ownership and homicides across states. Meaning if you just take the number of guns owned per capita in each state, and the number of homicides (or gun homicides) in each state, and plot them on a graph, there is no correlation. The article is clear about where its data came from; presumably anyone could verify that graph is he wanted to.

It seems to be the case that you have to adjust the data for various factors to get a correlation. That is what I gather from the earlier Harvard link and your link. So now I assume the dispute becomes whether it in principle makes sense to adjust the raw data like that, whether they adjusted for the right variables, whether they specifically make adjustments in order to show a correlation because they wanted there to be one, etc. And I just don't have the expertise to settle those questions with certainty.

 

[DonasaurusRex]

I'm no expert, but I'm not really sure Brazil is that much better off than Mexico.
Especially not the slums around big cities, which from what I understood from brazilian friends are a bit of a no law zone.
Which is why, like for the world cup, the government will try to keep tourists as far away of slums as possible.

are they disqualified from the stats just like mexico then?

 

[BearFlexington]

I'm in favor of "gun control" so long as that does not prevent me--a law-abiding citizen--from keeping one in my safe.

 

[RPGCrazied]

We should at least be banning assault type weapons. Thats for the Military! What average joe person need a weapon like that? And limit clip sizes for handguns. Why is that not a sensible compromise on the 2nd amendment?

 

[BearFlexington]

We should at least be banning assault type weapons. Thats for the Military! What average joe person need a weapon like that? And limit clip sizes for handguns. Why is that not a sensible compromise on the 2nd amendment?

These laws already exist (at least in California).

 

[Jisgsaw]

The NRO article's claim seems pretty clear to me. It's saying that there is no simple correlation between gun ownership and homicides across states. Meaning if you just take the number of guns owned per capita in each state, and the number of homicides (or gun homicides) in each state, and plot them on a graph, there is no correlation. The article is clear about where its data came from; presumably anyone could verify that graph is he wanted to.

It seems to be the case that you have to adjust the data for various factors to get a correlation. That is what I gather from the earlier Harvard link and your link. So now I assume the dispute becomes whether it in principle makes sense to adjust the raw data like that, whether they adjusted for the right variables, whether they specifically make adjustments in order to show a correlation because they wanted there to be one, etc. And I just don't have the expertise to settle those questions with certainty.

are they disqualified from the stats just like mexico then?

Stats can only show so much, which is why a clearly laid out adjustment or at least accompanying comment should be made.
Gun death rate is obviously highly dependant of crime rate, more so than of gun control or gun ban. Which is why the US is usually compared to western european countries, Canada and Australia, because that's where you have the least variance other than the gun control.

So yeah, if you think the crime is as bad in the US as in Mexico or in brazilian slums, gun control indeed wouldn't be that relevant on the global gun death rate, as shown by statistics; however I highly, highly doubt that.

 

[appaws]

Just to be sure: how do you feel about patriot act?

About taxes?
About laws?
About flight policies?
About road rules?

The moment you decide to live in a democracy, you end up giving up some of your liberties. "Your personal freedom stops where the freedom of another begins" is the basis of the democratic system (and frankly, every sane community that ever worked).

The Patriot Act sucks. It is mostly unconstitutional and infringes on the liberty of American Citizens.

Taxes are of course necessary to fund the operations of the state. The smaller the state means the less the people have to be robbed to pay for it.

Laws are of course necessary, but the more local the better. I am not an anarchist.

Flight policies? You mean like keeping violent nuts and terrorists off of airliners? Yes, I am for that of course. Jeez. As long as the constitutional rights of American citizens are protected. Like you should not be put on some secretive government list without due process of law.

Road Rules are necessary of course. Set at the local and state level and enforced there. Yes, of course.

Look I am not an anarchist. I'm a libertarian, maybe at the more extreme end of the spectrum. I guess I am a minarchist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchism

 

[TheExecutive]

The second amendment was placed right after the first amendment for a reason. The idea the founders of the constitution had was that without having the ability to overthrow a government the government wouldn't honour the first amendment or any others that came after.

This country was built on guns and gained is freedom through the use of them.

 

[TheTurboFD]

We should at least be banning assault type weapons. Thats for the Military! What average joe person need a weapon like that? And limit clip sizes for handguns. Why is that not a sensible compromise on the 2nd amendment?

Assault type weapons have been banned after a certain year... What are you talking about? I'm guessing you want to close the non existent "Gun show loophole" too? Magazines have a limit already in San Bernardino and look how that helped.

 

[Jisgsaw]

The Patriot Act sucks. It is mostly unconstitutional and infringes on the liberty of American Citizens.

At least one thing we agree on ;-)

Flight policies? You mean like keeping violent nuts and terrorists off of airliners? Yes, I am for that of course. Jeez. As long as the constitutional rights of American citizens are protected. Like you should not be put on some secretive government list without due process of law.

I meant the restrictions put on liquids and such (and guns).
Or to put another way (just curious): are you against gun free zones?

Road Rules are necessary of course. Set at the local and state level and enforced there. Yes, of course.

The question is then: why do you think they are a necessecity, but gun control isn't?
The goal of both is the same: reduce the threat level in limiting the destructive capability of the car resp. the gun. And that is even though it is actually harder to be allowed to drive than to carry a gun, while I'd argue a gun is much more dangerous.

Look I am not an anarchist. I'm a libertarian, maybe at the more extreme end of the spectrum. I guess I am a minarchist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchism

Uh, never heard from that.
"[The state's] only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud, and that the only legitimate governmental institutions are the military, police, and courts."
From that though, it sounds exactly like my post a couple pages back: the state is supposed to be in charge of the security; argumenting you need guns to do it yourself is either saying the state is incompetent and self law should abide, or just not adhering to that ideology.

The second amendment was placed right after the first amendment for a reason. The idea the founders of the constitution had was that without having the ability to overthrow a government the government wouldn't honour the first amendment or any others that came after.

This country was built on guns and gained is freedom through the use of them.

The second amendment was put there in a different time.
As other have argued, with or without guns, the state could screw you over in the unlikely scenario democracy fails and it suddenly would want to. Also a state using its military (which comes from among the citizens, which have families there) is hardly an easy feat to do.

 

[Milksheikhs]

Imagine if you really loved cars and thought you were a great driver. You have a garage full of cars and you clean them and polish them and brag about them. You take the out on weekends and scream "yeeeehawwww" as you drive them around. You also have a special car ready to go at all times in a safe place in your house in case your wife or kids needs to go to the store real quick (this one is a special car, careful the kids don't drive it while you're out)

You have a perfect driving record and are super proud of how safe you are. Unrelated to you, every day somewhere in the country someone drives their car into a crowd of people and kills them. The government then says "we have to do something about all these cars on the road" and that terrifies you. What did you do wrong? You're safe and careful and thoughtful about your driving. Why should you be penalized for something that someone else did? You're afraid and outspoken about someone taking away your cars because the rhetoric makes it sound like they will. Your neighbour even says its because Obama wants to get rid of all cars so he and the army can have drag races up an down your empty streets when all the cars are gone.

But you actually have to have a license to drive a car. Plus register the vechicle, have insurance and drive with tags. Also, pass inspections. People act like there's no limitations to driving cars, but there are.

In many states you don't have to have a gun license, register your gun, have a background check, or prove that you are even capable of using a gun properly. And in the states that do have that you can just bypass that by going to a gunshow.

It's unrealistic to expect the govt to go knocking at every person's door demanding they hand over their guns. It's not unrealistic to expect precautions be put in place to ensure guns are regulated.

We do the same with cars.

 

[AndyD]

Assault type weapons have been banned after a certain year... What are you talking about? I'm guessing you want to close the non existent "Gun show loophole" too? Magazines have a limit already in San Bernardino and look how that helped.

If those are not uniform across the US, you can waltz across state lines and get one. No one is checking your trunk when you come back. Although some have mentioned just that after this week's shooting, as an alternative to uniform gun control, which makes no sense to me.

In a way gun control should have stronger federal minimums tied to law enforcement funding, similar to highway and infrastructure funds being tied to minimal driving and safety related requirements. Background checks for all sales, minimum age for ownership, basic safety training requirements and a uniform registration process at minimum across the board.

 

[Senoculum]

But you actually have to have a license to drive a car. Plus register the vechicle, have insurance and drive with tags. Also, pass inspections. People act like there's no limitations to driving cars, but there are.

In many states you don't have to have a gun license, register your gun, have a background check, or prove that you are even capable of using a gun properly. And in the states that do have that you can just bypass that by going to a gunshow.

It's unrealistic to expect the govt to go knocking at every person's door demanding they hand over their guns. It's not unrealistic to expect precautions be put in place to ensure guns are regulated.

We do the same with cars.

Absolutely. I can't believe people actually use the automobile industry as the basis of their counter-point. It isn't the first time.

And you've hit the nail on the head: photo identification, license registration renewals, insurance, constant inspections to ensure safety standards; and on top of that, everyone is required to go through textbook courses and exams to prove they're sufficiently trained. And by law, you have to explain any mental illnesses to your local licensing agency. Or else.

Where the fuck are the gun regulations? You'd think all the "safe" gun owners would support something like that; you'd think that if you and a stranger are the only two against a threat, that the stranger would actually have the mental faculties, the know-how, and the cojones, to use a gun properly and not shoot you in the back of the head. I mean, that's a concern too, right?

And just a side note people, the second amendment was written at a time where most "guns" were single-shot muskets, where warfare was determined by the amount of soldiers you had on a grassy knoll. There were no rapid-fire triggers, there were no dot sights, there wasn't even kevlar or guns with large magazines. You know what's even scarier? The bullets of a regular 9mm can go through brick and drywall and kill you in your fucking sleep. I don't think the country's forefathers ever expected powerful weapons like that.

I'm just a frustrated Canadian here.

 

[appaws]

At least one thing we agree on ;-)

Yep. I hate that any American would support such a clear encroachment on our rights.

I meant the restrictions put on liquids and such (and guns).
Or to put another way (just curious): are you against gun free zones?

On planes. Of course, security measures have to be implemented. It's not really a violation of any rights because you don't have to fly, and because the airlines are private organizations.

Gun-free zones are stupid policy unless everybody is being searched and going through metal detectors like at an airport. It is just a meaningless sign that gets put up and changes no behavior of anyone who is up to evil.

I work in courthouses that are gun-free zones. But everybody goes through a metal detector to get in. It's actually enforced and is a reasonable safety measure. College campuses just putting up a sign accomplishes exactly nothing.

The question is then: why do you think they are a necessecity, but gun control isn't?
The goal of both is the same: reduce the threat level in limiting the destructive capability of the car resp. the gun. And that is even though it is actually harder to be allowed to drive than to carry a gun, while I'd argue a gun is much more dangerous.

Guns and cars are not the same. IMO, civilian firearm ownership is a bulwark of liberty against the state. Cars are not. Cars are not a human right. Self-defense is. The constitution does not protect cars, it does protect the civilian ownership of firearms.

Uh, never heard from that.
"[The state's] only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud, and that the only legitimate governmental institutions are the military, police, and courts."
From that though, it sounds exactly like my post a couple pages back: the state is supposed to be in charge of the security; argumenting you need guns to do it yourself is either saying the state is incompetent and self law should abide, or just not adhering to that ideology.

Yes, the state is very incompetent. And sometimes evil. Not always, but sometimes.

The second amendment was put there in a different time.
As other have argued, with or without guns, the state could screw you over in the unlikely scenario democracy fails and it suddenly would want to. Also a state using its military (which comes from among the citizens, which have families there) is hardly an easy feat to do.

So was the First Amendment. What "common sense" free speech reform are you in favor of? Yes, the state is very powerful. But low-tech insurgencies can extract a cost that state actors are not willing to pay.

 

[Jonm1010]

Are you suggesting that academics are not powerfully influenced by progressive political ideology? Or are you suggesting that a college which started to publish anti-gun-control journal articles would not be harshly criticized and ostracized by other colleges, academics, and progressives? Because both of those things seem obviously true to me.



The NRO article's claim seems pretty clear to me. It's saying that there is no simple correlation between gun ownership and homicides across states. Meaning if you just take the number of guns owned per capita in each state, and the number of homicides (or gun homicides) in each state, and plot them on a graph, there is no correlation. The article is clear about where its data came from; presumably anyone could verify that graph is he wanted to.

It seems to be the case that you have to adjust the data for various factors to get a correlation. That is what I gather from the earlier Harvard link and your link. So now I assume the dispute becomes whether it in principle makes sense to adjust the raw data like that, whether they adjusted for the right variables, whether they specifically make adjustments in order to show a correlation because they wanted there to be one, etc. And I just don't have the expertise to settle those questions with certainty.

Gun ownership maybe there isnt, but there is a correlation between gun control laws and gun violence.

 

[Moofers]

This is why dumbasses are against gun control.

YYYEEEEEAAAAAAHHHHHHH!

I think....I think it moved!

 

[Jisgsaw]

Guns and cars are not the same. IMO, civilian firearm ownership is a bulwark of liberty against the state. Cars are not. Cars are not a human right. Self-defense is. The constitution does not protect cars, it does protect the civilian ownership of firearms.

A gun isn't a necessity for self defense.
Heck, if a shooting started on a street, I'd take a car over a handgun anytime.
Same in the unlikely event I'd want to hurt dozens of people on a market or any kind of public gathering on the street.

Cars, more importantly, serve an actual purpose other than hurting people; guns don't. But strangely, it is for you normal to limit the harmless (relatively speaking) and usufull one, but to not keep in check the harmful one, that is only useful in some cases that arise from the fact that they are not kept inn check in the first place?

Yes, the state is very incompetent. And sometimes evil. Not always, but sometimes.
So was the First Amendment. What "common sense" free speech reform are you in favor of? Yes, the state is very powerful. But low-tech insurgencies can extract a cost that state actors are not willing to pay.

Here's what I don't understand with all these government conspiracies: you are aware that if it wanted to, the state would have much better means to get its way than to outright fight its population? And do it in such a way that it escapes the attention of the citizen?
Heck, I'm pretty sure they're doing it for a long time now.

The first amendment was written in another time too, yes; it however stays relevant (and is even more so relevant with the uprising of the internet) as communication has continued in the same direction as when it was written; militia and the british threat hasn't.