The Next US President is....

Status
Not open for further replies.
They say Canada has any many guns but not nearly as much gun violence.

A very big difference is that we have far fewer handguns - I grew up around firearms, had half a dozen of my own by the time I was 16, but I never owned a handgun, only long guns.

Only one person we knew had a pistol, and he was a competition shooter. Firearms in Canada are mainly hunting tools, and if you own one for "protection" it's for protection from bears. City folks rarely own firearms at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MikeH and warubuta
True. But that is not a valid reason to not support gun law reform.
At least a ban on automatic weapons would be a good start. Not sure the 2nd amendment specifically says people can own them. But what do I know? just discovered recently that airports already existed back then
 
  • Like
Reactions: Keihan Chikan
At least a ban on automatic weapons would be a good start. Not sure the 2nd amendment specifically says people can own them. But what do I know? just discovered recently that airports already existed back then
It would not really be a start to anything. Actually it is an NRA blocking strategy. The gun lobby has let this one get some traction because they know the public will support it because of the school shootings. Its a sacrificial lamb. We need a ban on handguns and very strict control of everything else, just like Japan. Attitudes toward guns are shaped by experience. If you have suffered from gun violence in some way, you will almost certainly be anti gun. If you grew up with guns; enjoyed hunting or whatever, and never saw anyone get hurt, then you will be pro gun. It really is that simple. The fact is though that intelligent, empathic people don’t need to have direct experience of something to understand it and form an opinion. So why is it that so many seemingly intelligent emphatic people can’t put themselves in the shoes of parents who have kids who are killed by gun violence? I really just don’t get it.
 
At least a ban on automatic weapons would be a good start.

FYI one can't just go down to the local Walmart and buy a full auto weapon of any type. I think you are confusing semi-automatic with full automatic. Huge difference even considering modifications like bump stocks. If those terms dont make sense to you, probably this isnt the debate to engage in.
 
FYI one can't just go down to the local Walmart and buy a full auto weapon of any type. I think you are confusing semi-automatic with full automatic. Huge difference even considering modifications like bump stocks. If those terms dont make sense to you, probably this isnt the debate to engage in.

I dont know much about biological weapons but im pretty sure they are bad and im pretty sure I have the right to engage in a debate about them.
Saying that if someone isnt a gun nerd then they shouldnt be able to debate gun control seems a bit silly to me.
 
FYI one can't just go down to the local Walmart and buy a full auto weapon of any type. I think you are confusing semi-automatic with full automatic. Huge difference even considering modifications like bump stocks. If those terms dont make sense to you, probably this isnt the debate to engage in.
Ok, semi-automatic. Whatever you call those guns that madmen CAN buy in your Land of the Free and shoot randomly at crowds , such as the Las Vegas shooting and so many others. Nitpick and be fussy if you want.
 
  • Like
Reactions: warubuta
FYI one can't just go down to the local Walmart and buy a full auto weapon of any type. I think you are confusing semi-automatic with full automatic. Huge difference even considering modifications like bump stocks. If those terms dont make sense to you, probably this isnt the debate to engage in.
True. But automatic vs. semi-automatic is only relavant to the current state of the debate because the gun lobby has been so successful. When the 2nd amendment was written, guns were loaded by hand from the front. First pour in some gun powder, then put in the slug, then use that rod to tamp it down. All in all, it was a few minute operation to fire one fucking bullet at a native American charging your little house on the prarie armed with a hatchet. If the Founding Fathers had any idea that guns would advance to the point where they could fire hundreds of bulltes non-stop, either in semi or automatic mode, and if they had any idea that they would be made available to pretty much anyone to be carried into today's densly populated urban environment, well, lets just say they might have thought twice. They were smart dudes who managed to write a document that balances individual rights and freedoms with common sense restrictions. If the FFs hade lived into the modern age of automatic weapons, they would have revised the amendment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Frenchy
If the FFs hade lived into the modern age

HAH you made a small spelling error!
Hade! Not had.
We must ignore the points you made and now focus on your error, whilst assuming all other people that share your point of view on this subject are equally stupid.

Is how the debate usually plays out....
 
HAH you made a small spelling error!
Hade! Not had.
We must ignore the points you made and now focus on your error, whilst assuming all other people that share your point of view on this subject are equally stupid.

Is how the debate usually plays out....

And usually after 20 or so escalations someone mentions the Nazis.
Lets cut the crap , I say it right away just to save time : “Nazis”. Ok, done :ROFLMAO:
 
  • Like
Reactions: MikeH and warubuta
HAH you made a small spelling error!
Hade! Not had.
We must ignore the points you made and now focus on your error, whilst assuming all other people that share your point of view on this subject are equally stupid.

Is how the debate usually plays out....
Did you learn that tactic from King Julian?
 
These guys tend to shoot each other in the head at an alarming rate.

Come on, there are plenty of other good points about the current gun legislation too.

There are many countries with more guns per capita than US. Some of these have way less gun violence than US.

The Swiss males have military assault rifles at home. The only conclusion we can draw here is that it's not the guns, it's the Americans which is the problem.
 
If the Founding Fathers had any idea that guns would advance to the point where they could fire hundreds of bulltes non-stop, either in semi or automatic mode, and if they had any idea that they would be made available to pretty much anyone to be carried into today's densly populated urban environment, well, lets just say they might have thought twice. They were smart dudes who managed to write a document that balances individual rights and freedoms with common sense restrictions. If the FFs hade lived into the modern age of automatic weapons, they would have revised the amendment.

Na. 2nd amendment is meant to ensure freedom and independence from tyrants and that requires weapons sufficient to combat whatever the tyrant has. Furthermore they'd recognize the current government as a tyranny and surely support an insurgency to destroy it.

America is a loose economic conglomeration of groups that hate each other and sooner or later the guns will be necessary to deal with the collapse of the nation. That's the unspoken truth behind both sides of the gun control argument.
 
Come on, there are plenty of other good points about the current gun legislation too.

There are many countries with more guns per capita than US. Some of these have way less gun violence than US.

The Swiss males have military assault rifles at home. The only conclusion we can draw here is that it's not the guns, it's the Americans which is the problem.
The Swiss military (all 40 of them) being allocated assault rifles after, I'm sure, thorough psychological testing and extensive training, is a bit different than any civilian american over 21 who does not have a criminal record, being able to get one is a bit of a stretch of a comparison....

I am not completly unsympathetic to the idea that people kill people not guns. But if I have to live in a world full of violent people, I would like to take away their guns. South Africa has made good progress in reducing the number of unregistered firearms and they have seen a reduction in gun violence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Frenchy
Na. 2nd amendment is meant to ensure freedom and independence from tyrants and that requires weapons sufficient to combat whatever the tyrant has. Furthermore they'd recognize the current government as a tyranny and surely support an insurgency to destroy it.

America is a loose economic conglomeration of groups that hate each other and sooner or later the guns will be necessary to deal with the collapse of the nation. That's the unspoken truth behind both sides of the gun control argument.
The protection against tyranny arguement never made sense to me. Who decides what tyranny is? If my marginal tax rate goes from 30 to 31% and the government also decides that I need to take an eye test every year to keep my drivers license since I am over 65, those in combination might push me over the edge and make me feel that the government is tyrannical. So then I stop voting and start shooting? Again, it made sense back when you had local militia, a new federal government, general lawlessness and political instability. It makes zero sense now.
 
The Swiss military (all 40 of them) being allocated assault rifles after

Try half a million, and the testing and training is not that extensive as it's basically everyone sane over 18.

The restriction of guns, as well as any other laws, works only if people have something to lose. Any middle-aged beer bellied Mike or Buta doesn't want any problems with the boys in blue so he keeps his nose clean and doesn't kill his neighbour with a shotgun.

But if Jamel has 20 bucks total on him and no prospects getting any more legally he doesn't care if he are fined a thousand or a million bucks, it's just the same. Thus making gun laws stricter just makes Mike and Buta to be more careful and makes no difference to Jamel.

Of course the best way to solve this would make everyone middle class and thus everyone would have something too valuable to lose so they'd behave. Failing that I believe you should control people, not guns. That would mean trying to make it harder for Jamel to have a gun and easier to Mike and Buta. That would lead to civil war soon and then we could start from the scratch.
 
The protection against tyranny arguement never made sense to me. Who decides what tyranny is? If my marginal tax rate goes from 30 to 31% and the government also decides that I need to take an eye test every year to keep my drivers license since I am over 65, those in combination might push me over the edge and make me feel that the government is tyrannical. So then I stop voting and start shooting? Again, it made sense back when you had local militia, a new federal government, general lawlessness and political instability. It makes zero sense now.

The people with the guns decide what tyranny is. Sure, go shooting as long as you know it won't accomplish anything. But if you're smart, better to get a critical mass of gun owners to agree. Then maybe you don't even need to shoot. Probably not though because there's a bigger mass of people happy with the way things are and the money to pay other people to die for them. But without the guns you're helpless against the tyranny of the majority.

I think it's pretty clear that the founding fathers believed in freedom and independence and did their best to create a limited government. Unfortunately they failed, but the constitution and bill of rights are a legacy that may someday help restore a little of what they believed in.

Maybe it'll be a state trying to secede and gun owners dealing with the national guard. Or small communities protecting themselves from looting bands of inner city zombies after a massive economic collapse or other disaster. No matter, gun are needed and as someone once wrote "the right to buy weapons is the right to be free".
 
Or small communities protecting themselves from looting bands of inner city zombies after a massive economic collapse or other disaster.

This reminds me when I was watching the Walking Dead with a young Japanese lady (don't ask). It was the first episode and the day two in it was starting. The young lady comments "at around this time everyone in Japan is dead". :eek::D
 
  • Like
Reactions: vargas
Try half a million, and the testing and training is not that extensive as it's basically everyone sane over 18.

Yeah, no one wants to come out and say that Switzerland is fine with guns because they have a tight, homogeneous, cohesive culture. Japan could allow everyone to carry a gun in public and the crime rate would still be a fraction of US inner cities. Though there'd definitely be more psychos and stressed salarymen killing people haha :ROFLMAO:
 
This reminds me when I was watching the Walking Dead with a young Japanese lady (don't ask). It was the first episode and the day two in it was starting. The young lady comments "at around this time everyone in Japan is dead". :eek::D

LOL that's sad but also hilarious. I do hope the Japanese find the box they buried their balls in before China invades. Somewhere deep down there's still the psycho WW2 soldier charging a machine gun nest with a sharpened bamboo spear.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Frenchy and MikeH
The people with the guns decide what tyranny is. Sure, go shooting as long as you know it won't accomplish anything. But if you're smart, better to get a critical mass of gun owners to agree. Then maybe you don't even need to shoot. Probably not though because there's a bigger mass of people happy with the way things are and the money to pay other people to die for them. But without the guns you're helpless against the tyranny of the majority.

I think it's pretty clear that the founding fathers believed in freedom and independence and did their best to create a limited government. Unfortunately they failed, but the constitution and bill of rights are a legacy that may someday help restore a little of what they believed in.

Maybe it'll be a state trying to secede and gun owners dealing with the national guard. Or small communities protecting themselves from looting bands of inner city zombies after a massive economic collapse or other disaster. No matter, gun are needed and as someone once wrote "the right to buy weapons is the right to be free".
Its the 'sure go shooting' scenario that needs to be avoided. Its called terrorism. Although the shooters will call it a revolution.
 
My theory about gun control laws is that pro gun people think mostly about themselves. They think that they are smart and moral enough to control their weapon at all times and use it only when they are morally justified. Pro gun control folks think about the people around them. They see loads of incompetent and immoral people who should never be near a firearm. So my question to you is twofold, if the gun in your pants went off by some freak accident and you accidentally shot either:

A. Your balls off
B. A fleabag hippie resulting in your long term incarceration and daily sodimization

would that change you view on firearms?

Normally I won't come anywhere close to starting an online gun debate because they're 1) boring and also because 2) the anti-gun arguments are generally based in either emotion or ignorance or a combination of both, which means the gun advocate always wins. That said, you posed a question so before I go off to happy hour I'm obligated to answer it. HOWEVER, there are a couple of points that need clarification.

First, there is no modern firearm, no pistol nor revolver, that can magically or "accidentally" fire on its own. It is mechanically impossible. Loaded and chambered Glock pistols have been tossed out of airplanes and fallen several thousand feet and not a single one discharged upon impact. There is only ONE way a firearm fires, and that's by having its trigger pulled. The only circumstance I can imagine where a firearm can discharge without the trigger being pulled is if the firearm were engulfed in flames long enough for the heat to activate the cartridge's primer, but if the pistol on my waist has been engulfed in flames long enough for that, I probably have bigger problems than a dead hippie or my balls missing.

Further, I cannot fucking stand hearing ignorant jagoffs in the news or the movies talk about an "accidental discharge." There is NOTHING "accidental" about a firearm discharge. There are two ways a firearm is discharged: INTENTIONAL discharge, and NEGLIGENT discharge. And a NEGLIGENT discharge occurs when an individual doesn't follow the three basic, golden rules of firearms safety that every kid in America should learn by age 5:

1) Treat every firearm as if it's loaded.
2) Always keep a firearm pointed in a safe direction.
3) KEEP YOUR FUCKING FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER.

Therefore, in the hypothetical situation you described where I either a) blow my nuts off or b) unintentionally shoot the fleabag hippy, then it would be because I NEGLIGENTLY discharged the weapon I was carrying and deserved the full consequences of my actions, whether that's being sterile or locked up in prison. I would have earned it. And it certainly would not compel me to want to deprive law-abiding Americans of their constitutionally-guaranteed rights.

But as the direction of this conversation has naturally gone the inevitable route of clamoring for "gun control," I'm not going to hesitate to say it: GUN CONTROL DOES NOT WORK.

Ask Bill Clinton how well "gun control" works in America. Clinton helped author and signed into law the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, which contained most every provision that gun-control advocates today clamor for under the guise of "common sense gun laws" (including bans on scary "assault style rifles," standard capacity magazines and anything else that looked spooky to these fucking pussies). The AWB proved to be an abject failure and did absolutely NOTHING to decrease gun violence in America. Bill Clinton has gone on record many times admitting this. So worthless were these "common sense gun laws" that ten years later when the AWB was set to expire, the DEMOCRAT CONTROLLED CONGRESS didn't even bother trying to renew it. It failed, as all gun control attempts fail, yet every time someone gets shot and weepy liberals in the news start wailing for someone to "DOOOO SOMETHING!!" the usual crowd of dickless activists crawl out of the woodwork and demand we bring the failed AWB back again.

As others have alluded to, the states with the most lenient gun laws and highest gun ownership in America also have the lowest rates of gun-related crime while the cities and states with the strictest gun laws have the highest rates of gun-related violence. As you alluded to, those same cities also have large, concentrated populations of African-Americans and Hispanic-Americans. This is not opinion or conjecture but plain, simple fact. The only state in America with extremely restrictive gun laws yet very little gun violence is Hawaii, but racial demographics in Hawaii are dominated by East Asians and Caucasians with very, very few blacks or Hispanics.

So what does that mean? Honestly? You said it first...It means you can pass all the gun restrictions you want but it won't do anything if there are lots of black and/or brown people in your city. But thanks to the racial climate we live in, go ahead and be the first (white) person to say that in public and you will be burned at the cross, labeled a racist, a bigot, a Nazi, a white supremacist; you will probably lose your job; you will be shunned in most social circles.

Guns are not the problem. PEOPLE are the problem. Humans are violent by nature and Americans have violence AND guns woven into the fabric, history and culture of our nation. You are not going to legislate guns away and it wouldn't make a difference even if you could. And no matter where you are in the world, if you snapped your fingers today and every firearm disappeared, nutcases would just find another method of killing people. Perhaps turn to the methods of the Allahu Akbar crowd and start mowing people down with vans at crowded intersections, or fashioning homemade explosives. Seems to me they're able to kill as many or more than the loony American kid with his mom's AR-15. And we as a people, nation and culture entered a new phase and reality in April 1999 when those kids shot up Columbine High School in Colorado. I know, I was thirty minutes away from the school. I watched it on live tv standing next to the siblings of some of the kids crawling out of the windows. I went to the memorial. I watched Al Gore's moronic speech afterwards where he wailed for more gun control and maybe two people in the crowd of 1000 clapped. The Columbine Shooting happened during the Assault Weapons Ban, by the way. People are the problem, and people keep getting worse.

If you TRULY cared about "people around you" and "saving lives," you'd be clamoring for bans on alcohol and vehicles, which kill exponentially more men, women and children every day than any firearm, legal or not. But you're not going to do that because it doesn't make sense to ban alcohol (as we learned through Prohibition) nor cars (because that's retarded), just as it makes no sense historically, statistically, legislatively, legally, tactically or logically to try banning firearms.

And now I'm going to go get drunk and try to rub one out later.
 
And now I'm going to go get drunk and try to rub one out later.

Written at 13.29 on a thursday.

I dont agree with you but I respect the success you have had in life that allows you the autonomy to start drinking and jerking off when 80% of the working population are sat at a desk doing something their boss told them to do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Keihan Chikan
Written at 13.29 on a thursday.

I dont agree with you but I respect the success you have had in life that allows you the autonomy to start drinking and jerking off when 80% of the working population are sat at a desk doing something their boss told them to do.

But who knows, he may be a porn and booze test-user as a job
 
  • Like
Reactions: Keihan Chikan
If you TRULY cared about "people around you" and "saving lives," you'd be clamoring for bans on alcohol and vehicles

Or, just a suggestion, you might consider getting your country's mental health care in order or try to create a society where people could live meaningful lives. Yeah, the latter is probably just as good an idea as communism was.

The thing is when people talk about "gun control" nobody even knows what each other means with it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Keihan Chikan
Status
Not open for further replies.