Gun Control

[Nathan89]

So present day Germany is really vulnerable.
But we are only semi vulnerable.
And Fckn Norway, France, England...

Oh , I forgot, they are held hostage by a socialist government they can vote in or out. Which they do.

If you don't mind, I can do without your Bundy Militia defending me from vulnerability with an ar-15. You have a shotgun so we can eat some quail together, they are delicious. And white tail doe and Axis deer. When do we eat?

"Bundy Militia" is a nice deflection to reality. Why did they prohibit Jews from having guns if they didn't have any value? Uh...uh... let deflect that reality with a "Bundy Militia" remark.

Yes, those countries are vulnerable. Especially the countries like England that seem to have thought police for the internet.

But...but... I have pretend that millions of people being wiped out with ease is impossible for my argument to be relevant. Otherwise the handfuls of people that die in the statistical anomalies that we call "mass murders" wouldn't be something to rally behind for ineffective gun laws in the hopes prevent said anomalies.

Yes, a country of citizens armed with butter knives is significantly more vulnerable than a country armed with firearms. You are required to delude yourself of that to push narrative based on an inconsequential amount of deaths though.

[pgardn]

"Bundy Militia" is a nice deflection to reality. Why did they prohibit Jews from having guns if they didn't have any value? Uh...uh... let deflect that reality with a "Bundy Militia" remark.

Yes, those countries are vulnerable. Especially the countries like England that seem to have thought police for the internet.

But...but... I have pretend that millions of people being wiped out with ease is impossible for my argument to be relevant. Otherwise the handfuls of people that die in the statistical anomalies that we call "mass murders" wouldn't be something to rally behind for ineffective gun laws in the hopes prevent said anomalies.

Yes, a country of citizens armed with butter knives is significantly more vulnerable than a country armed with firearms. You are required to delude yourself of that to push narrative based on an inconsequential amount of deaths though.

The Bundys thought the federal government had done them wrong while illegally grazing their cattle on MY land. You think I should go in and give them a what fer?

You have built yourself a survivalist shelter. You must have.

England, France and Germany are all vulnerable because their citizens don't have guns?
We see totally different threats. Most significant Western revolutions have been caused by unequal distribution of wealth due to corrupt dictatorships. Then the army pledges to either their neighbor's or their government. You would have citizens fighting citizens as well. Excellent. All breaks lose either way. So think about a healthy middle class before pledging allegiance to the subdivision you live in.

[DMC]

Lots o' losing when you are the judge.
So do you ever feel like shooting the monitor because your 1st amendment rights are tering on the brink of collapse?

It's easy to see you build a 3 sided room and ask someone to choose a direction in which to exit. That's a sign of a weak argument. Dunning Kruger suits you perfectly.

[DMC]

The Bundys thought the federal government had done them wrong while illegally grazing their cattle on MY land. You think I should go in and give them a what fer?

You have built yourself a survivalist shelter. You must have.

England, France and Germany are all vulnerable because their citizens don't have guns?
We see totally different threats. Most significant Western revolutions have been caused by unequal distribution of wealth due to corrupt dictatorships. Then the army pledges to either their neighbor's or their government. You would have citizens fighting citizens as well. Excellent. All breaks lose either way. So think about a healthy middle class before pledging allegiance to the subdivision you live in.

How much acid did you drop in your younger days?

[Pavlov]

So you are for banning alcohol because it causes an massive amount of casualties every year? No?

Actually I wouldn't mind stricter laws concerning alcohol tbh.

How would you feel about that?

[pgardn]

How much acid did you drop in your younger days?

Is your OCD overwhelming or just bothersome?

It not easy for you to see anything.
You got instruments that measure things allowing you to smell numbers.
That was neat.

[pgardn]

It's easy to see you build a 3 sided room and ask someone to choose a direction in which to exit. That's a sign of a weak argument. Dunning Kruger suits you perfectly.

"Im being trodden on, where's muh gun", rates weak arguments?
You just lost.
Mark that down.

[DMC]

"Im being trodden on, where's muh gun", rates weak arguments?
You just lost.
Mark that down.

I've not once claimed anyone is trying to take my gun. I'm a bowhunter. You going to take my bow?

Your need to divide people into two extreme positions is another indication that you're short on scope.

[spurraider21]

It's easy to see you build a 3 sided room and ask someone to choose a direction in which to exit. That's a sign of a weak argument. Dunning Kruger suits you perfectly.

says the guy who says the only options are to ban all guns or do nothing at all

[DMC]

says the guy who says the only options are to ban all guns or do nothing at all

Where did I say those are the only options?

Cue...."you didn't use those exact words but..."

[DMC]

1. You don't have to be a gun expert to have a valid opinion on whether or not they should be legal to own.
2. However if you don't know anything about guns, you're going to get into a quagmire if you try to discuss technical legislation like "evil features".
3. Comparing guns to anything else used to kill people is a valid argument as long as the argument is about saving lives instead of limiting or avoiding certain types of deaths.
4. "Designed purpose" is a poor argument especially coming from folks who are gun ignorant.
5. Recency bias makes you think mass shootings are rampant, and media coverage of those vs other incidents where multiple people are killed creates the false sense of urgency.

[pgardn]

I've not once claimed anyone is trying to take my gun. I'm a bowhunter. You going to take my bow?

Your need to divide people into two extreme positions is another indication that you're short on scope.

You claiming your first amendment goes before your 2nd...
I don't care what you hunt with buster.

[Nathan89]

The Bundys thought the federal government had done them wrong while illegally grazing their cattle on MY land. You think I should go in and give them a what fer?

You have built yourself a survivalist shelter. You must have.

England, France and Germany are all vulnerable because their citizens don't have guns?
We see totally different threats. Most significant Western revolutions have been caused by unequal distribution of wealth due to corrupt dictatorships. Then the army pledges to either their neighbor's or their government. You would have citizens fighting citizens as well. Excellent. All breaks lose either way. So think about a healthy middle class before pledging allegiance to the subdivision you live in.

You sure do like to focus statistical outliers. Even more so in this comment.

If they aren't more vulnerable then the Nazis made the law prohibiting jews to own guns for nothing. Did they? I don't think so. They are either more vulnerable or at the very least perceived as more vulnerable which makes them more vulnerable. They are especially more vulnerable when you combine them being armed with butter knives with their limited free speech rights.

"You would have citizens fighting citizens as well. Excellent. All breaks lose either way."

Citizens being able to fight citizens in what can be framed as a revolution to fix a broken system is significantly different than eating bullets on your knees from those in power trying maintain/gain even greater power. Newsflash nobody is coming our rescue if something that unfortunate was to ever happen. So moving policy based on statistical anomalies labeled as "mass murders" (meanwhile thousands die from alcohol accidents and silence), just because the news bombards you with it, doesn't seem favorable to me. It lacks foresight and historical perspective. It appeals to feels in the moment without regards to anything else. It literally requires you to believe that history can't possibly repeat itself.

[Pavlov]

You sure do like to focus statistical outliers.

Isn't Nazi Germany a statistical outlier?

[pgardn]

You sure do like to focus statistical outliers. Even more so in this comment.

If they aren't more vulnerable then the Nazis made the law prohibiting jews to own guns for nothing. Did they? I don't think so. They are either more vulnerable or at the very least perceived as more vulnerable which makes them more vulnerable. They are especially more vulnerable when you combine them being armed with butter knives with their limited free speech rights.

"You would have citizens fighting citizens as well. Excellent. All breaks lose either way."

Citizens being able to fight citizens in what can be framed as a revolution to fix a broken system is significantly different than eating bullets on your knees from those in power trying maintain/gain even greater power. Newsflash nobody is coming our rescue if something that unfortunate was to ever happen. So moving policy based on statistical anomalies labeled as "mass murders" (meanwhile thousands die from alcohol accidents and silence), just because the news bombards you with it, doesn't seem favorable to me. It lacks foresight and historical perspective. It appeals to feels in the moment without regards to anything else. It literally requires you to believe that history can't possibly repeat itself.

You still don't get it.

As a society, if we were merely interested in death to US citizens we would end transportation by individuals. No driving big machines. But, we as a society have decided the deaths due to the inevitable accidents, is worth the price of freedom of transportation. We attempt to make cars safer and roads safer (God forbid government mandated in many places "I hate my Fckn seatbelt"), but this will not stop the carnage because lots of the US is open and without public mass transportation. People will die. Many people will die.

People in the US have not decided that past and recent mass shootings due to people with weapons that can kill many people very rapidly is just part of the price of freedom to bear arms. We have guns everywhere, they will never go away, it's too much apart of our heritage IMO. But, weapons that are used to kill people very rapidly are not okay with the majority of Americans where as death due to transportation, is accepted.

Now what are you having problems understanding?

Because the majority of people don't see this happening on any significant scale in the US:


Is significantly different than eating bullets on your knees from those in power trying maintain/gain even greater power.

[Nathan89]

Isn't Nazi Germany a statistical outlier?

Yeah, it's an outlier with significantly more damage though. He uses outliers with minimal damage.

outlier*low damage= nothing(but he's pushing policy on it)
outlier*high damage= something(certainly something to factor in to policy decisions)

The problem is the high damage outlier is far more rare so people don't even consider it even though the damage far out weighs the other scenario. Meanwhile the low damage outlier happens frequently enough for the news to bombard the nation and appeal to feels. Of course there will be zero perspective. They want change and any change even if it erodes our rights will do. Even if it's proven to be ineffective the change is fine.

[Nathan89]

You still don't get it.

As a society, if we were merely interested in death to US citizens we would end transportation by individuals. No driving big machines. But, we as a society have decided the deaths due to the inevitable accidents, is worth the price of freedom of transportation. We attempt to make cars safer and roads safer (God forbid government mandated in many places "I hate my Fckn seatbelt"), but this will not stop the carnage because lots of the US is open and without public mass transportation. People will die. Many people will die.

People in the US have not decided that past and recent mass shootings due to people with weapons that can kill many people very rapidly is just part of the price of freedom to bear arms. We have guns everywhere, they will never go away, it's too much apart of our heritage IMO. But, weapons that are used to kill people very rapidly are not okay with the majority of Americans where as death due to transportation, is accepted.

Now what are you having problems understanding?

Because the majority of people don't see this happening on any significant scale in the US:


Is significantly different than eating bullets on your knees from those in power trying maintain/gain even greater power.

Majority Americans lack foresight so the appeal to feels of the present is more compelling than being secure in the long-term. If the News showed the majority of Americans perspective then that will quickly change.

Yes, automobiles are clearly 100% necessary. When you compare guns to alcohol which is not necessary you realize that it really all boils down to a selfish perspective.

There are 3 factors here: lack of foresight, lack of historical perspective, and a selfish perspective.

Source for you majority of Americans claims? Just want to look at it.

[Pavlov]

Yeah, it's an outlier with significantly more damage though. He uses outliers with minimal damage.

outlier*low damage= nothing(but he's pushing policy on it)
outlier*high damage= something(certainly something to factor in to policy decisions)

The problem is the high damage outlier is far more rare so people don't even consider it even though the damage far out weighs the other scenario. Meanwhile the low damage outlier happens frequently enough for the news to bombard the nation and appeal to feels. Of course there will be zero perspective. They want change and any change even if it erodes our rights will do. Even if it's proven to be ineffective the change is fine.

Well, if the US starts taking guns fom Jews you can say "I told ya so."

[Nathan89]

It's not that they don't see that happening they don't even consider it happening. One should certainly consider it and I'm not sure why it so difficult to see it happening.

"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

[Nathan89]

Well, if the US starts taking guns fom Jews you can say "I told ya so."

Are you lost?

In that scenario the American populace is Jews.

There will be the news and a "you" fear mongering till every gun is taken away. These guns are too "dangerous" (even though this is a irrelevant statistical outlier and making this change doesn't change anything about deaths by guns) so let's take them away. Government takes them away. Something happens with other guns. The goal posts move. The very same argument you made about the high power guns can still be made about virtually any gun. Rinse repeat. Fear monger. Rinse repeat. The population is now gunless and more vulnerable.

[Nathan89]

The unfortunate thing is when guns are gone and American populace is vulnerable to the whims of those in power nobody is going to come to their rescue. If America isn't a risk to the World then everybody is going to let us get ed.

Of course that couldn't possibly happen. History doesn't repeat at all. So here have my guns even though they don't move the needle at all(they are just too scary and I lack all perspective).

[Nathan89]

Guns are checks and balances for the entire system. Without them you are vulnerable. Period.

[Pavlov]

Are you lost?

In that scenario the American populace is Jews.

There will be the news and a "you" fear mongering till every gun is taken away. These guns are too "dangerous" (even though this is a irrelevant statistical outlier and making this change doesn't change anything about deaths by guns) so let's take them away. Government takes them away. Something happens with other guns. The goal posts move. The very same argument you made about the high power guns can still be made about virtually any gun. Rinse repeat. Fear monger. Rinse repeat. The population is now gunless and more vulnerable.

This is your confiscation fantasy?

It's kind of lame tbh.

Let me know when you make your brave armed stand against the tyrannical gubmit, OK? I want to have popcorn handy.

[pgardn]

It's not that they don't see that happening they don't even consider it happening. One should certainly consider it and I'm not sure why it so difficult to see it happening.


"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

And you have not learned that the scenario that leads to most revolutions (that you are going to lead when the government tries to rule you) comes from dictatorial type government's where wealth is unequally distributed and the government tries to take even more. We already have that established government here, we are not a colony anymore. Are you waiting for Texas to violently break away from the US? Read about the most recent large scale revolutions from within. French, Britian, even Russian.

So what are you doing from preventing a family or king or ruling class to unfairly take the peasants money and then move into the middle class creating a naked division? You need to get together with Boutons and do something.

[pgardn]

Guns are checks and balances for the entire system. Without them you are vulnerable. Period.

Branch Davidianesque...

Ok.

Guns are checks and balances, Fk the 3 branches.
Eventually artillery will be useful as well. Seriously. Just take a look at how important artillery is today when fighting must take place on the ground.

We got a nut.
Done.