Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Moadar]

Maybe you should take all the money you spend on guns and spend it on finding a nicer area, then?

What a simple solution. You should tell everyone in those areas that. You have solved it all.

- - - Updated - - -

There is literally a good solution available to you across the Pacific Ocean.

I'm not returning to the motherland.

[Elegiac]

What a simple solution. You should tell everyone in those areas that. You have solved it all.

"Everyone living in those areas" isn't demanding unrestricted access to firearms, though; the main people doing so live in suburbs or out in the boonies. So what's the disconnect?

I'm not returning to the motherland.

You don't have to, we can just enact the same policies here.

[Moadar]

"Everyone living in those areas" isn't demanding unrestricted access to firearms, though; the main people doing so live in suburbs or out in the boonies. So what's the disconnect?



You don't have to, we can just enact the same policies here.

How do you know? I see a lot of people here wanting access to firearms because police ain't shit.

One size fits all policies between two vastly different countries? Have my doubts.

[Elegiac]

How do you know? I see a lot of people here wanting access to firearms because police ain't shit.

I know because of the demographic breakdown regarding attitudes to gun control, and the people who generally live in high risk areas seem to have the strongest support FOR gun control.

In your case, the plural of anecdote is not evidence.

One size fits all policies between two vastly different countries? Have my doubts.

Exactly what differences do you think exist in the US that would preclude this?

"Well it's just common sense" isn't an answer: be specific as to what differences you think constitute the roadblock.

[Moadar]

I know because of the demographic breakdown regarding attitudes to gun control, and the people who generally live in high risk areas seem to have the strongest support FOR gun control.

In your case, the plural of anecdote is not evidence.



Exactly what differences do you think exist in the US that would preclude this?

"Well it's just common sense" isn't an answer: be specific as to what differences you think constitute the roadblock.

No one comes to these places and ask anyone shit. The only time anyone cares is for voting and to drum up some news story. Other than that its all bullshit. Papers aren't reality. Feel free to go find out for yourself.


The founding of each country, the history of the country, the populations, the disparity. Everything is different.

How about you worry about making the place safe enough that people don't need guns. Then you can prove it is safe by disarming the police and secret service.

[Elegiac]

No one comes to these places and ask anyone shit. The only time anyone cares is for voting and to drum up some news story. Other than that its all bullshit. Papers aren't reality. Feel free to go find out for yourself.

So you don't have evidence. Got it.

The founding of each country, the history of the country, the populations, the disparity. Everything is different.

Yeah, but you're still not explaining specifically how these things would constitute roadblocks to gun control. Rofl.

How about you worry about making the place safe enough that people don't need guns.

Which would involve the same gun control you keep insisting is too much.

Then you can prove it is safe by disarming the police and secret service.

Why? Your issue with them having guns is that their present training and regulation is insufficient. Them not having firearms doesn't "prove" anything beyond servicing your silly point about complaining that you can't have a toy you've shown you can't use responsibly when Billy has.

[Theodarzna]

It's also a good thing that the discussion isn't around mass-disarmament but rather regulation. Weird that people keep thinking wanting some additional protections in place and something like, say, requiring a basic safety class and a license to own guns is the same as taking away guns entirely.

Ahhh, so, like Voter ID laws, but for guns, interesting.

[Elegiac]

Ahhh, so, like Voter ID laws, but for guns, interesting.

Lemme know when regulation of a monetary transaction for a saleable good is remotely the same thing as putting a fee on representation in government.

[Noxx79]

Ahhh, so, like Voter ID laws, but for guns, interesting.

Let me know when your vote kills someone, or anything.

[bladeXcrasher]

Let me know when your vote kills someone, or anything.

They are a Trump supporter, so yeah, their votes do technically kill people, much like the balance of the GOP.

[Felya]

Ahhh, so, like Voter ID laws, but for guns, interesting.

Guns already cost money... guns are not free... wtf?

- - - Updated - - -

Let me know when your vote kills someone, or anything.

No, we need to institute a poll tax ban on guns, just like the one preventing voter ID. Let’s see these NRA nuts demand that guns be provided free, just like voting is...

- - - Updated - - -

Lemme know when regulation of a monetary transaction for a saleable good is remotely the same thing as putting a fee on representation in government.

The reason Voter ID is not legal, is because poll taxes are not legal. Comparing guns to voting, is a demand for guns to be provided without any cost to every single citizen of US, that is over 18. That would mean everyone gets the same gun and you can’t buy additional guns. Just like you can’t buy a vote...

Modifications to guns would also be illegal... I am not sure how losing or destroying your gun would work... because it’s an idiotic comparison.

Edit: I don’t know what fucking idiot ya’ll are listening to, that this voter ID comparison is brought up and keeps being repeated, but can ya’ll read this and then apply it to this assertion:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking

The people telling you this nonsense, think you are morons. Don’t let them be right...

[postman1782]

So Wikipedia and Politifact are the best sources you guys have? If you guys want to go on "studies" then I present this article that questions the credibility of Politifact. Feel free to read the whole article (I know most of you won't) but here's a quote from it "Now comes a study from the George Mason University Center for Media and Public Affairs that demonstrates empirically that PolitiFact.org, one of the nation's leading "fact checkers," finds that Republicans are dishonest in their claims three times as often as Democrats." So according to that it seems as though Democrats never tell a lie. I guess republicans are the only ones that lie and spread disinformation.

Here's a little summary of a book written by Stephen P. Halbrook about Nazi Germany gun control who holds a Ph.D in both philosophy and law and won 3 constitutional law cases in the US Supreme Court. If it's not enough for you guys, find the book in your local library or somewhere and read up on it. I know none of you will because none of you actually care about learning what the facts are and just want to stay in your emotional bubbles but I figured I would at least offer it.

So you guys can call me liar but since you guys like to go off of "studies" I can call your sources bullshit since one, according to this study, Politifact is a biased site and the other is..well it's Wikipedia not much has to be said there. These are literally the first results that pop up too in Google so I'm guessing you guys just took the very first results that came up and called them fact because they were "studies" and because Wikipedia said so. You guys would be laughed at if you presented these sources as your evidence in an actual debate or in a court setting. The fact that you guys just believe these "fact-checkers" without question is pathetic and quite scary.

And I am willing to admit I'm wrong when presented with actual facts from credible non-biased sources. I'm even willing to admit my sources are wrong if presented with actual credible evidence proving it. Although if someone links me an article from Wikipedia I'm just going to laugh and shake my head.

- - - Updated - - -



Yeah it's always a gangbang when 99% of the people on this site are hardcore liberals. Makes arguments pointless and tiring too which is why I sometimes never respond.

Ah yes, a fucking opinion article that uses Russian disinformation retard Boris Epshteyn as a fucking source from 2013? What a waste of a fucking useless post.

[Felya]

Oh an the last piece of irony on this cake of stupid... A concealed gun license is an acceptable form of voter ID in Florida, but your VA or Student ID isn’t... guess which one of those 3 IDs, has an age limit of at least 21? Voting in US starts at 18...

[Theodarzna]

They are a Trump supporter, so yeah, their votes do technically kill people, much like the balance of the GOP.

Via the 2nd Amendment and case law, one has a right to own firearms. Weird, that bit gets missed.

- - - Updated - - -

Which is an entirely separate problem, and given the widespread ownership and gun violence isn't much of an excuse to fall back on.

Well, given that things like wealth redistribution, Universal Health Care, or guaranteed jobs are never going to happen under the current political system, depriving people of their ability to protect themselves seems kinda nuts, unless making sure nobody can protect themselves is the point. Which kinda defeats your earlier claim that you weren't out to confiscate firearms.

[Muzjhath]

Via the 2nd Amendment and case law, one has a right to own firearms. Weird, that bit gets missed.

They have a right to own it. But there is no bit on "for free". They still have to buy it as property. This is regulating that transaction to know who owns which firearm.

[Felya]

Via the 2nd Amendment and case law, one has a right to own firearms. Weird, that bit gets missed.

You are arguing to make guns free... your argument is against poll taxes, which means guns would be free... this is blind bias, because this comparison doesn’t work even on the most basic of concepts.

- - - Updated - - -

They have a right to own it. But there is no bit on "for free". They still have to buy it as property. This is regulating that transaction to know who owns which firearm.

Not just for free... these guns would all have to be identical... you couldn’t buy or alter said gun... and as I already said... there is nothing analogous with voting, that can be stolen, lost or broken... like a gun...

Oh... and the gun would be a musket...

Edit: You would also... gasp... have to register...

Edit 2: How do you use a gun, absentee? Like... if you work in a country with strict gun laws, you can still vote in Us elections. How does that work with a gun? Does the second amendment become a globalized law, unique to Americans? I don’t think most countries would agree...

- - - Updated - - -

Well, given that things like wealth redistribution, Universal Health Care, or guaranteed jobs are never going to happen under the current political system, depriving people of their ability to protect themselves seems kinda nuts, unless making sure nobody can protect themselves is the point. Which kinda defeats your earlier claim that you weren't out to confiscate firearms.

Who are you protecting your self from? I want to know who you are planning to shoot.

Edit: ‘If we don’t get universal healthcare, then we cut out the middle man and start killing people’... is the most idiotic self contradiction I can imagine. What’s the point of universal healthcare? If you need a gun to shoot people, due to not having healthcare, why do you care about healthcare? The people you shoot will gain medical problems... you are not curing or saving lives, by shooting people...

No one who sees shooting people, as an outcome of not having universal healthcare, gives a shit about healthcare. How does a gun fit into the Hippocratic oath? How does healthcare saving lives, regardless of how much money you have... turn into shooting people?

[PhaelixWW]

Actually, I do: as of 2013 your lifetime chances of a home robbery are about 1 in 6000.

I mean, this stat is just plain wrong.

[Theodarzna]

They have a right to own it. But there is no bit on "for free". They still have to buy it as property. This is regulating that transaction to know who owns which firearm.

So regulate to where a gun costs 20 million dollars? Again, I ask, so like Voter ID laws? We aren't banning anyone from voting, we are just regulating around the thing that might incidentally make it impossible for some people to actually exercise that right.

[Elegiac]

So regulate to where a gun costs 20 million dollars? Again, I ask, so like Voter ID laws? We aren't banning anyone from voting, we are just regulating around the thing that might incidentally make it impossible for some people to actually exercise that right.

Once again, you're welcome to point out how possession of a saleable good is remotely comparable to representation in government, sweaty.

Until then the analogy will continue to be a crap one.

[Milchshake]

You are arguing to make guns free... your argument is against poll taxes, which means guns would be free... this is blind bias, because this comparison doesn’t work even on the most basic of concepts.

I'm getting Lucille Bluth vibes here.



When you want your wealthy conservative husband to own a gun, because you think the maid is stealing.