• Categories

Vanilla 1.1.4 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

 
    •  
      CommentAuthorBobdH
    • CommentTimeOct 4th 2017 edited
    Aidabaida wrote
    my point is that many americans don't trust the government to have all the guns, which is why an Australia-esque seizure is thankfully not going to happen.


    But the government is always going to have guns. So going from this logic, you're saying Americans want guns to fight/defend against the... police? In what scenario you think you're going to win such a stand-off?

    Also, you're saying law-abiding Americans want guns to protect themselves against criminals/outlaws. But none of these mass shootings were done by criminals. They were done by seemingly law abiding citizens with no attachments to criminal milieu's but all of a sudden had access to hardcore guns (which even a child or mental psycho Lone Ranger could buy in America).
    •  
      CommentAuthorAidabaida
    • CommentTimeOct 4th 2017 edited
    BobdH wrote

    But the government is always going to have guns. So going from this logic, you're saying Americans want guns to fight/defend against the... police? In what scenario you think you're going to win such a stand-off?


    there was a law passed in Canada saying that it could be considered child abuse if parents didn't accept their toddler's gender identity. if their three year old claimed they were a girl, and parents told him, "no, honey, you're a boy," that could be considered abuse worthy of taking the child away. (regardless of your feelings on transgenderism, this is ridiculous. if you ask a three year old what gender they want to be, they'll say a unicorn.)

    i know many people who, if CPS came to take their child away because they said to their three-year-old boy, "no, you're not a girl", would meet the police at the door with a shotgun.

    i'm not planning to fight the police any day, but if the government became tyrannical, then absolutely you would see the 2nd amendment rights being used to fight back. and it's funny that the left says there is no chance the government would turn tyrannical and we would need to fight back when they are the ones calling Donald Trump a fascist who must be resisted.
    Bach's music is heartless and robotic.
  1. If the government becomes tyrannical, written law goes out of the chimney. We than enter the realm of natural law. Under such circumstances, that would probably mean civil war, I trust that everyone would be able to arm himself who so wished.

    Volker
    Bach's music is vibrant and inspired.
  2. I mean Mon Mothma and Bail Organa would organize the resistance, Incom would desert to the rebels with their X-Wing blueprints ... wink
    Bach's music is vibrant and inspired.
  3. If the government becomes tyrannical, I'm getting the fuck out of Dodge, not staying behind to enact some sort of civilian guerrilla warfare.

    Also, your facts seem to be woefully off on that Canada law, as the only sources I can find claiming that it gives the government the power to swoop into your home and steal your child are nothing more than right-wing fear-mongering rags. I'm not super familiar but it seems to me like the child would only be taken into protective services if the gender disagreement was part of a systemic pattern of abuse. You're making it sound like the government has hit squads hiding behind every tree, listening in on every home, just waiting for the parents to say the wrong thing so they can kick the door down.
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeOct 4th 2017
    I always found this a very odd argument. If government becomes tyrannical, they'll have planes, tanks, bombs, toxic gas and a full industrial and logistical infrastructure for utter mass extinction.
    Good luck handling that with a six-shooter.
    'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn
    •  
      CommentAuthorBobdH
    • CommentTimeOct 4th 2017 edited
    Aidabaida wrote
    BobdH wrote

    But the government is always going to have guns. So going from this logic, you're saying Americans want guns to fight/defend against the... police? In what scenario you think you're going to win such a stand-off?


    there was a law passed in Canada saying that it could be considered child abuse if parents didn't accept their toddler's gender identity. if their three year old claimed they were a girl, and parents told him, "no, honey, you're a boy," that could be considered abuse worthy of taking the child away. (regardless of your feelings on transgenderism, this is ridiculous. if you ask a three year old what gender they want to be, they'll say a unicorn.)

    i know many people who, if CPS came to take their child away because they said to their three-year-old boy, "no, you're not a girl", would meet the police at the door with a shotgun.

    i'm not planning to fight the police any day, but if the government became tyrannical, then absolutely you would see the 2nd amendment rights being used to fight back. and it's funny that the left says there is no chance the government would turn tyrannical and we would need to fight back when they are the ones calling Donald Trump a fascist who must be resisted.


    This is among the most disturbing reasoning I have ever heard. This is low-education, not able to oversee all the consequences logic. This is reasoning you do not want to base important decisions on concerning a nation and its people, especially when countless lives are at stake.

    First of all, the story is false but went viral within the conservative bubble anyway. Fake news.

    The reasons a child may require protection are laid out in section 74(2) of Bill 89. There is no specific reference to gender identity or gender expression, but if a child is suffering sexual, physical, or emotional abuse, including "serious" psychological effects, child welfare agencies may intervene.

    Source: https://www.buzzfeed.com/ishmaeldaro/on … .vwowBALB0


    But as this is simply an example to demonstrate a point, what IF the government had decided to take away your child based on grounds unsupported by you? You think greeting a governmental institution with a gun gives any kind of solution? Maybe for the moment, but then your problems will be bigger. They'll come back with back-up, will now definitely take away your child, and you'll likely face serious consequences.

    And this is with all the instances when you somehow get in your head to aim a weapon towards people in service of the government. You don't stand a chance and you're escalating your problems.
  4. If there would be any resistance at all. Up until 1933 arms restrictions laws in Germany were liberal and firearms were wildly distributed. That didn't stop the Nazis from assuming power. Rather on the contrary.
    Bach's music is vibrant and inspired.
    •  
      CommentAuthorBobdH
    • CommentTimeOct 4th 2017 edited
    Captain Future wrote
    If there would be any resistance at all. Up until 1933 arms restrictions laws in Germany were liberal and firearms were wildly distributed. That didn't stop the Nazis from assuming power. Rather on the contrary.


    Good point. When I was in Berlin last week I saw at the Topographie des Terrors enough proof of this point, the escalation of violence and terror.
  5. Aidabaida wrote
    i know many people who, if CPS came to take their child away because they said to their three-year-old boy, "no, you're not a girl", would meet the police at the door with a shotgun.

    And you think the police's response would be "oh, sorry to bother you, have a nice day?" (In Canada, maybe tongue ). No seriously, they'd just come back with more force and take the kid anyway. You can not outgun the government, no matter how much you want to.
  6. More, you actually make sure that you can't outgun your government. After all it's your taxes that arm it.
    http://www.filmmusic.pl - Polish Film Music Review Website
    •  
      CommentAuthorAidabaida
    • CommentTimeOct 5th 2017 edited
    BobdH wrote

    The reasons a child may require protection are laid out in section 74(2) of Bill 89. There is no specific reference to gender identity or gender expression, but if a child is suffering sexual, physical, or emotional abuse, including "serious" psychological effects, child welfare agencies may intervene.

    Source: https://www.buzzfeed.com/ishmaeldaro/on … .vwowBALB0


    dude, that very article says, ""One of the most noteworthy changes is around gender. Accommodating a child's gender identity or gender expression is now given the same protection as race, ethnicity, disability, or sexual orientation, bringing it in line with the province's human rights code.""

    the law says children could be removed if there was 'serious emotional abuse', and given that it conflates accommodating subjective gender-identity with accommodating objective identity such as race, as part of the human rights code, then it would be considered 'serious emotional abuse' to not accommodate your five-year-old boy claiming he is a girl.

    at the very least, there are serious debates to be had. at the very most, this is totalitarianism.

    but as you identified, the law wasn't the main point. I was speaking about the hypothetical in America, and trying to make the point that there is precedent for this, I'm not giving conspiracy theories when I talk about the government possibly turning tyrannical.

    what would happen if the American government turned tyrannical then?

    well, according to you guys.

    I If government becomes tyrannical, they'll have planes, tanks, bombs, toxic gas and a full industrial and logistical infrastructure for utter mass extinction.
    Good luck handling that with a six-shooter.


    They'll come back with back-up, will now definitely take away your child, and you'll likely face serious consequences.


    You can not outgun the government, no matter how much you want to.


    More, you actually make sure that you can't outgun your government. After all it's your taxes that arm it.


    America's founding document, the declaration of independence: But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

    it is not just the right of the American people to "throw off" despotism, it is their duty.

    you need to understand that America is built on the idea that there are rights which are not ordained by men. the government does not create these rights, it protects them. it is the duty of the American people to 'throw off' any government which tramples on these rights.

    now, that doesn't mean I'm organizing rebellion if I disagree with the laws that are passed.

    it does mean that, should the government begin to take children from their parents, should a president attempt to cancel an election, should, in short, the government become tyrannical, the 300 million guns in the united states should come in handy.

    there's this piece of history called the American Revolution. Where a bunch of farmers beat the greatest army in the world. It has happened.

    in case I sound like a ridiculous nut, here's some better minds.

    "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
    - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

    "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
    - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

    "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
    - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

    "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

    - Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

    “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

    - Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

    "To disarm the people...[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them."

    - George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

    "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."

    - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787


    The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."

    - Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

    "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."

    - Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778
    Bach's music is heartless and robotic.
    •  
      CommentAuthorBregt
    • CommentTimeOct 5th 2017
    Do you also have a quote that is not 250 years old? Times have changed. wink

    However, thanks for sharing your position, even though it seems you are the only one defending this side. It is confronting to read the other side once in a while, because this is a very liberal and European public. That doesn't mean we will ever agree. wink
    Kazoo
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeOct 5th 2017 edited
    But you do of course realise that by quoting men who formulated their ideals and goals in a society of 250 years ago merely reinforces the idea that the very concept of standing up to an unjust government is highly romanticised in the USA? The time of the Minute Men are past. A hidden cache of muskets will not keep the King away any longer.

    Keeping government in check is done through the political process, through -for better or for worse- pressure and lobby groups. Through checks and balances in the system. Through voting. Through social reform.
    Guns are a blip on the radar in circumstances like a tyrannical government.
    Look around at actual tyrannical governments. How much good would your gun have done in Syria when Assad bombarded his population with toxic gas? How much good would your gun have been when Saddam firebombed entire villages? How much good would your gun have been in former Yugoslavia in the nineties when tanks razed entire streets?

    I understand how these ideals are being kept as hallowed. I do.
    But they squarely belong in another age, of heroic loners, of John Waynes and times where, according to legend, a man could carve out a place for himself with a gun and a horse.

    On a quick side note I do appreciate you putting forward your point of view and keeping it civil. This is in wry contrast to...well, pretty much EVERY other discussion I have seen on the subject following the latest tragedy, and while the conversation is an extremely frustrating one (as bothe sides see an inevitable truth and simply can't seem to get through to the other) the fact that the tone doesn't degrade to insults and namecalling is something I already find quite heartening.

    That's not to say I see validity in your points or agree with you. smile

    Like pretty much everyone else in the entire first world outside of the US, the proliferation of guns in the States is absolute insanity to me. Its homicide rate (by firearm) is the very highest by a massive margin in the developed world.

    That alone should give pause.

    Not the highly disputed 'it prevents crime' argument.
    Not the 'but 64% of deaths is suicides' argument.
    But merely this: right now, the chance of being murdered by a firearm in the US is comparable to that of dying in a car crash. Not one single first world country in the world even comes close to that.

    And if the countering argument is that these murders would have taken place anyway even without guns, then maybe it IS time for the good people in the US to stop and consider that maybe they simply are apparently far more dangerously violent than the rest of the civilised world?

    At this point I have no real answer.
    A very good start would be for people who agree to simply start handing in their guns. Aidabaida is right: a buyback program will be far too costly. Regulation will never get off the ground due to vested interest groups with a LOT of money (plus enforcement will be a nightmare).

    But a grassroots movement might work.
    Bottom-up.
    Stop making guns cool, but start portraying them as disgusting, wrong.
    Start showing in films and tv what a gun shot actually does to a body.
    Make the very idea of owning a gun slightly embarassing.
    It worked with cigarettes.
    It can work with guns.
    (Although admittedly a couple of high-visibility court cases helped...so maybe it's not such a bad idea to try and get messrs. Smith and Wesson before the magistrate for their involvement in some wrongful deaths... wink )
    'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeOct 5th 2017 edited
    Ugh. I see Bregt just made my points before me.
    And quite a lot briefer as well.

    That's my eternal pitfall.
    I don't DO brief.
    'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeOct 5th 2017
    Martijn wrote
    I always found this a very odd argument. If government becomes tyrannical, they'll have planes, tanks, bombs, toxic gas and a full industrial and logistical infrastructure for utter mass extinction.
    Good luck handling that with a six-shooter.


    yes, you don't stand a chance against them ever. I think americans from what i read here, have a strong urge to wipe the shit out of each other. i say let them smile there's overpopulation there too!
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeOct 5th 2017 edited
    Edmund Meinerts wrote
    Aidabaida wrote
    i know many people who, if CPS came to take their child away because they said to their three-year-old boy, "no, you're not a girl", would meet the police at the door with a shotgun.

    And you think the police's response would be "oh, sorry to bother you, have a nice day?" (In Canada, maybe tongue ).


    God I love Canada. All 'sorry this' sorry that and gentle and mellow and shit smile i want to move away from our whitetrash christian-taliban jesus loving orthodox church-ridden society here! smile
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeOct 5th 2017
    Don't know the dude and have nothing against him but it's funny to me, to see such endless and deep discussions with a right-wing, trump support american . It's all alien stuff to me. And trying to prove your points is like shouting to a wall here, if you examine the counter-arguments from his side smile I admire your patience and devotion and persistence ! cheers! beer
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
  7. Aidabaida wrote
    there's this piece of history called the American Revolution. Where a bunch of farmers beat the greatest army in the world. It has happened.

    This was at a time when give or take a cannon or two, the so-called "greatest army in the world" had access to weaponry no more refined than what those farmers had. You would be a fool to argue that that's the case today. Times change. Laws must change to keep up.

    Martijn and Bregt made the same points I would have far more eloquently than I ever could because I get too impassioned with stuff like this to argue straight, so thank you, gentlemen. beer
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTimeOct 5th 2017
    Edmund Meinerts wrote
    Martijn and Bregt made the same points I would have far more eloquently than I ever could because I get too impassioned with stuff like this to argue straight, so thank you, gentlemen. beer


    Ha, ha....same here.
    I am extremely serious.
  8. I completely agree with Martijn's view on things. Their whole gun culture is just absolutely insane. Just today I read an article about Donald Stump junior stating that silencer's for guns are an awesome accessory to own as it allows children to play with guns and it protects your ears ! rolleyes

    If that guy is to become a future U.S. president we're all pretty much fucked, if not already.
    "considering I've seen an enormous debate here about The Amazing Spider-Man and the ones who love it, and the ones who hate it, I feel myself obliged to say: TASTE DIFFERS, DEAL WITH IT" - Thomas G.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAidabaida
    • CommentTimeOct 5th 2017 edited
    i want to move away from our whitetrash christian-taliban jesus loving orthodox church-ridden society here!


    where the bottom 10% is better off than the top 10% world-wide!

    But you do of course realise that by quoting men who formulated their ideals and goals in a society of 250 years ago merely reinforces the idea that the very concept of standing up to an unjust government is highly romanticised in the USA? The time of the Minute Men are past. A hidden cache of muskets will not keep the King away any longer.


    Sure, and it is a bit romanticized, but remember, the U.S. Constitution is the oldest Constitution that is still active; these ideas work and have worked for hundreds of years. just because times have changed doesn't mean the fact has changed it is useful for the civilian populace to remain armed.

    And remember, by resistance I wouldn't be talking about a dude at a doorstep with a shotgun firing at wave upon wave of helicopters; if the government were to turn tyrannical, it would take a concentrated, organized, group of resistance fighters.

    I mean look at Afghanistan or Vietnam, where the U.S. Army with all its guns and bombs couldn't beat untrained guerilla fighters. The truth is, people fighting for what they say as freedom will fight until the bitter end. The human heart desires freedom, will not tolerate oppression and tyranny. Again, as I have made it clear, it is not a far-flung, absurd, alt-history dream that the U.S. might become a tyrannical country. It could happen, and if it did happen, then the 250 year time-gap would make no difference when it came to fighting back.

    Remember, my argument is that the benefits of an armed populace far outweigh the benefits of confiscating or highly regulating weaponry. The resistance to tyranny is just one part of why there is a second amendment (according to our founders, a big part), there is also, as you mentioned, self-defense, hunting, sport, etc.

    But also, it's because the level of guns does not have any effect on the crime level. The amount of guns has been increasing in America while crime has decreased.

    The real problem I see with discussing gun control and gun confiscation is, as Mark Levin put it, the longer we discuss pretend solutions, the less likely we are to find real solutions.

    Maybe there are no solutions, maybe, as Martjin put it, guns will need to go the way of the cigarette, simply lose their lustre. (Maybe criminals will give up their guns when its not considered cool?)


    We need to remember that the vast majority of these shootings are done with handguns, and they are done between young men, mostly African American. Mass shootings are a bad way to understand the gun problem because they are shocking but present such a small part of the whole.

    There are severe cultural factors here: if you are born without a father, you are 20 times more likely to end up in jail, and over 70% of black children are born without a father. this whole gun epidemic might come down to a lack of parental leadership in America, a lack of people getting instilled values that they need.

    “It is the bliss of childhood that we are being warped most when we know it the least.” - William Gaddis

    the right gets mocked for supporting traditional values, but lets be clear, those values work. married couples are much more prosperous and their children are less likely to go to jail. the right gets mocked for moralizing and preaching, but its only through a strengthening of America's moral core; through, yes, returning to traditional values of peace, kindliness, and neighborly decency will there be a decrease in this awful violence.

    and who knows, there might be a solution in law waiting for us. but the more we argue about pretend solutions that not only will not happen, but would not have any effect if they did happen, the less likely we are to find the real solution.
    Bach's music is heartless and robotic.
  9. How is closing the gun show loophole a "pretend solution"? How is opening up a gun registry a "pretend solution"? How are heightened background checks a "pretend solution"? These are all legitimate solutions that get shot down, no pun intended, before they can even be discussed. Why does the NRA prevent Congress from even funding research into whether or not gun control measures would be effective or not? Surely if they, and you, believe what they say they believe, they would support said research because it would prove them right? Why is every other developed nation on the face of the planet able to get by just fine without an armed populace if it's so vital to the survival of democracy?

    "the U.S. Constitution is the oldest Constitution that is still active; these ideas work and have worked for hundreds of years."

    If, by "worked", you mean "result in a country that has exponentially higher gun deaths than any other developed country in the world", then yes, clearly it's working with flying colors.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAidabaida
    • CommentTimeOct 5th 2017
    Edmund Meinerts wrote
    How is closing the gun show loophole a "pretend solution"? How is opening up a gun registry a "pretend solution"? How are heightened background checks a "pretend solution"? These are all legitimate solutions that get shot down before they can even be discussed. Why does the NRA prevent Congress from even funding research into whether or not gun control measures would be effective or not? Surely if they, and you, believe what they say they believe, they would support said research because it would prove them right? Why is every other developed nation on the face of the planet able to get by just fine without an armed populace if it's so vital to the survival of democracy?


    1. closing the gun show loophole would be a pretend solution because there's no such thing as a gun show loophole. the enormous majority of sellers at gun shows have to run background checks. more importantly, its a pretend solution because 0.7% of felons get their guns from gun shows.

    2. opening a gun registry would be a pretend solution for several reasons. Criminals never leave behind guns that are registered to themselves. If they do, it is because they were killed or severely injured. and they ensure the guns they use are not registered to themselves. Canada got rid of its registry because the police could not find a single example of when it was helpful. The DC police department said they could not “recall any specific instance where registration records were used to determine who committed a crime.”

    3. heightened background checks would be a pretend solution because 80% of crime guns are bought from non-regulated, illegal sources.

    Surely if they, and you, believe what they say they believe, they would support said research because it would prove them right?


    absolutely, which is why I am just as frustrated by the NRA spending 3 million dollars a year to protect their interests as I am by Planned Parenthood spending 38 million dollars a year to protect theirs. There's a lot of corruption. (Side Note: I like Thomas Sowell's idea to end corruption. Give every congressman a million-dollar a year salary, and limit terms to only one. They would no longer need to take bribes or bow down to special interests in order to get re-elected.)'

    If, by "worked", you mean "result in a country that has exponentially higher gun deaths than any other developed country in the world", then yes, clearly it's working with flying colors.


    i heard a nice breakdown of the numbers that I think is worth quoting here. if I have a wrong statistic in here, please let me know.

    There are 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms.

    U.S. population 324,059,091.

    0.000000925% of the population dies from gun related actions each year.

    Obviously, that's still a lot of people. Let's beak down the numbers further.

    • 65% of those deaths are by suicide. (remember, when australia banned guns, suicide by other methods spiked. banning guns will not prevent this)

    • 15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty. justified deaths.

    • 17% are through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally ill persons – gun violence


    gun violence deaths from people shooting innocent people, unrelated to gang wars or police shooting criminals or suicides, is not 30,000 annually, but 5,100.

    let's look at the 5,100 shootings.

    • 480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago

    • 344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore

    • 333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit

    • 119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington D.C. (a 54% increase over prior years)

    25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities with strict gun laws.

    that leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation, or about 75 deaths per state.

    some States have much higher rates than others. For example, California had 1,169 and Alabama had 1.

    in other words, if you are not killing yourself, if you are not part of a gang, if you are not running from the police, you have an astronomically low chance of being shot.

    most of the homicidal gun violence in america is violence between criminal drug gangs (who have internal systems for procuring weapons). almost no one is just being randomly shot.

    so yes, America has a homicide problem, but this problem is concentrated in (specifically 4) inner cities. if we are to approach the problem, we need to approach it from its source. none of the gun control policies I have heard would address the brunt of the problems.
    Bach's music is heartless and robotic.
  10. Aidabaida wrote
    1. closing the gun show loophole would be a pretend solution because there's no such thing as a gun show loophole. the enormous majority of sellers at gun shows have to run background checks. more importantly, its a pretend solution because 0.7% of felons get their guns from gun shows.

    Even stopping 0.7% is better than stopping nothing at all. It's an easy loophole to close. Why not just do it?

    Aidabaida wrote
    2. opening a gun registry would be a pretend solution for several reasons. Criminals never leave behind guns that are registered to themselves. If they do, it is because they were killed or severely injured. and they ensure the guns they use are not registered to themselves. Canada got rid of its registry because the police could not find a single example of when it was helpful. The DC police department said they could not “recall any specific instance where registration records were used to determine who committed a crime.”

    Perhaps, but it would at least make it possible for investigators to trace the gun. Second-hand gun sales that don't re-register the gun to its new owner should be made illegal as well. And I've heard some interesting things about fingerprint technology on guns that are well worth looking into.

    Aidabaida wrote
    3. heightened background checks would be a pretend solution because 80% of crime guns are bought from non-regulated, illegal sources.

    Leaving, again, 20% that is absolutely worth pursuing. Anything is better than the way things currently are. Obviously no solution is going to be perfect but that's no reason to shoot down imperfect ones that will nevertheless improve things.

    Aidabaida wrote
    absolutely, which is why I am just as frustrated by the NRA spending 3 million dollars a year to protect their interests as I am by Planned Parenthood spending 38 million dollars a year to protect theirs. There's a lot of corruption. (Side Note: I like Thomas Sowell's idea to end corruption. Give every congressman a million-dollar a year salary, and limit terms to only one. They would no longer need to take bribes or bow down to special interests in order to get re-elected.)'

    The difference there being, obviously, that Planned Parenthood actually does good things for millions of people. But you won't find me arguing against term limits.

    Aidabaida wrote
    • 15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty. justified deaths.

    If you think every death by law enforcement is justified then you clearly have not been reading the news for the past 5 years, but that's a whole different argument...

    Aidabaida wrote
    25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities with strict gun laws.

    As I believe I have stated previously, localized gun control is a joke if you can just drive over a state line. If anything is to happen, it needs to happen at a nationwide level.

    Aidabaida wrote
    so yes, America has a homicide problem, but this problem is concentrated in (specifically 4) inner cities. if we are to approach the problem, we need to approach it from its source. none of the gun control policies I have heard would address the brunt of the problems.

    And again, even addressing part of the problem is better than not addressing it at all, which is what the NRA has had us doing for several decades. I'm not saying background checks will immediately eradicate all gun violence across the entire country. But if they save even one life, if they stop one shooting, then I would consider that well worth it.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAidabaida
    • CommentTimeOct 5th 2017
    Even stopping 0.7% is better than stopping nothing at all. It's an easy loophole to close. Why not just do it?


    ...because it's already closed. sellers at gun shows run background checks.

    Perhaps, but it would at least make it possible for investigators to trace the gun.


    again, even liberal Canada admitted they had not once made use of a gun registry. it's a pretend solution that people argue not because it will do good, but because again, it's 'DOING SOMETHING', regardless of whether that something is worthwhile.

    Leaving, again, 20% that is absolutely worth pursuing. Anything is better than the way things currently are. Obviously no solution is going to be perfect but that's no reason to shoot down imperfect ones that will nevertheless improve things.


    so 20% of crime-guns are bought from sources that are required to do background checks. does this mean that the background checks simply don't work, or that they should be more stringent? I'm interested in research on the subject.

    definitely an area where there could be a viable solution.

    The difference there being, obviously, that Planned Parenthood actually does good things for millions of people.


    in your eyes. from my perspective, they murder babies for money and are responsible for the greatest evil currently at work in the world at large.

    but this isn't an abortion debate, I'm just saying that if you oppose big money in politics, you can't argue that people who do good in your eyes ought to be allowed to pour millions of dollars in lobbying, while people who do bad in your eyes should not be allowed to. who made you the determiner of 'doing good things for millions of people'? some people would argue the NRA does good for millions of people - after all there were appx. 3 million uses of guns for self defense in a single year.

    plus the 3 million dollars a year that the NRA uses for lobbying is about a few months of Jimmy Kimmel's salary. That's not a "stranglehold" on Congress. The NRA is powerful because it is popular.

    If you think every death by law enforcement is justified then you clearly have not been reading the news for the past 5 years


    the whole 'police shooting unarmed black men' thing? if you're going to seriously bring this up, then we should mention the amount of innocent black people killed by police is less than the number of innocent black people killed by lightning.

    I'm not saying background checks will immediately eradicate all gun violence across the entire country. But if they save even one life, if they stop one shooting, then I would consider that well worth it.


    like I said above, I'm interested in more research on the topic. these background checks would also cost money that would have to be footed by the gun purchaser. Given that poor people in dangerous neighborhoods need guns more than anyone to protect themselves, then this could be a problem.

    also remember that no amount of background checks would have stopped the Las Vegas shooter - he had no criminal record, nothing to indicate he would've done anything wrong...

    don't think I'm just trying to randomly poke holes in any solution, I just want to make sure that anything we propose will SAVE LIVES.

    that's the ultimate goal here: saving lives, as many as possible. I'm interested in any solution, but I'm also cognizant of the fact that this solution most likely will not involve the government.
    Bach's music is heartless and robotic.
  11. This article seems to address the issue rather balanced and without bias.

    smile Volker
    Bach's music is vibrant and inspired.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAidabaida
    • CommentTimeOct 5th 2017
    Captain Future wrote
    This article seems to address the issue rather balanced and without bias.

    smile Volker


    thanks for the link. i agree with some of it and disagree with some of it. tongue

    i think I'll be done with this specific debate for now. we could essentially go back and forth forever, and I joined maintitles to discuss film music, not gun control.

    thanks for the fairly-reasonable discussion, everyone!
    Bach's music is heartless and robotic.
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeOct 5th 2017
    Although a great many points always remain open, contestable and debatable, I was debating whether to get a bit more clarification in (which would almost certainly entail some sort of repetition of points already addressed) or to suggest working towards an organic end of this particular topic.

    So I find myself agreeing with Aidabaida in leaving this for now.

    Doesn't mean the topic is in any way off-limits, of course.
    Anyone still having thoughts to share on this issue is completely free to do so!
    'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeOct 5th 2017 edited
    Aidabaida wrote
    i want to move away from our whitetrash christian-taliban jesus loving orthodox church-ridden society here!


    where the bottom 10% is better off than the top 10% world-wide!


    I think I wasn't clear enough. I love Canadians who are gentle mellow etc smile At least I love the idea of Canada and how it seems to be presented as a progressive , well-regulated, chill society (only downside is the dick-cold!) i said i'd love to move there, away from here. here is where I currently live (cyprus, Greece etc) is where the white-trash jesus loving big fat orthodox priests rule alongside dirty politicians.
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.