|
LGD posted:Uhhh I haven't done that? I've taken your batman-based psychological profile of your ex-roommate as a given this whole time because it's an Internet anecdote. I'm just denying its validity and utility as an analytical or illustrative tool when looking at this issue. fair enough. i've known a couple guys like him who were all pretty weird, and most of them had positively expressed a desire to both defend themselves and protect others using their pistol, which is an indictment against them and not against the concept of public order or looking out for your fellow man in general. i do know a few other people who own guns, but keep them at home and take them to the range, and they're pretty normal
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 02:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 07:44 |
|
|
Fog Tripper posted:Well, we know that he had a CCW license, but do we even know if he had a firearm with him at the time of the alleged incident? Also I think he tripped over his baggy pants and the other guy said "that was a strange trick"
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 02:14
|
|
|
Watch the IHOP Spartan's case be the one that makes it to the supreme court and turns all gun laws unconstitutional
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 04:05
|
|
|
Omi-Polari posted:Yes I think you're right. Most Americans have a high degree of personal safety in their lives. A lot of Americans also like guns. That's why a lot of the justifications for it are post-hoc rationalizations. Most people buy guns because they enjoy them, and fighting the government (by gun owners who are largely past fighting age) or defending against criminals (despite living with Western European levels of safety) are rationalizations that don't quite square with the reality of our lives. while 'because I want to and it's none of your business' is IMO sufficient justification, that isn't the reason it's an enumerated right where smoking grass or painting my kitchen hot pink or going everywhere in a Nixon mask isn't, in a state that mostly doesn't respect the 'none of your business' argument. I don't have any immediate plans to use a gun for anything socially useful, and yes so what, but also the state has determined that this specific rights has merited additional protections and whether I personally have taken advantage of that freedom in a frivolous way is no more the point than whether what I say is profound wisdom that'll transform everyone's lives for the better. The highways aren't really there so I can go camp out in the mountains on a weekend, but it's still imperative that they remain open to traffic. It's a legalistic argument rather than a per se ethical one, because there's no real point in arguing ethics from a perspective of maximizing human liberty with the wierd british guy who openly declares he'd rather see everyone enslaved if that enables him to make correct choices for them that might extend their lifespans a couple years. There's no point in arguing law with him either, but, y'know. D&D the likelihood of whatever scenario random people are prepping for also isn't an especially persuasive thing to quibble over either, except to maybe personally argue someone into more sensible life choices; imagine how much of a dickhole you'd have to be and how much panic you'd stir up if you were a government official barring people from planning evacuation routes for that big Washington earthquake everyone's wigging out about this week because statistically they'll almost certainly be okay and don't really neeeeeeeed it A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 04:34 on Jul 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 04:19
|
|
|
Omi-Polari posted:One argument is that there are so many guns already, so gun control is pointless. But this a problem *created by the presence of guns* in the first place -- so the argument doesn't hold much water. Unless you have a time machine and can go back and prevent those 300 million guns getting out there - it absolutely does hold water. There is no point debating what should have happened 50 years ago. We need to consider the current situation when debating what, if any, action should be taken RE gun control.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 10:38
|
|
|
I haven't read the last 200 posts but in closing guns are pretty cool and the founding fathers wanted you to have them so it's a win/win.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 12:10
|
|
|
Volcott posted:I haven't read the last 200 posts but in closing guns are pretty cool and the founding fathers wanted you to have them so it's a win/win. No they aren't you see because I knew this guy and he
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 13:10
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Watch the IHOP Spartan's case be the one that makes it to the supreme court and turns all gun laws unconstitutional And that Spartan's name was... Albert Thugdrink
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 15:45
|
|
|
the founders wanted me to have a gun so I can shoot sheets of paper or maybe clay disks with other fat hicks
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 15:57
|
|
|
Jamwad Hilder posted:the founders wanted me to have a gun so I can shoot sheets of paper or maybe clay disks with other fat hicks This commitment to practicing your aim and training your accuracy would satisfy the "well-regulated" part of the amendment.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 16:00
|
|
|
Jamwad Hilder posted:the founders wanted me to have a gun so I can shoot sheets of paper or maybe clay disks with other fat hicks They were revolutionaries, they wanted you to be able to overthrow an oppressive government. "Because we need a potentially evil army to defend the country, we need to make sure that the average Joe citizen has guns to defend himself"
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 16:25
|
|
|
2nd amendment should include the right to have one of those hammers you use to break the glass on fire extinguishers in order to summon the comte de grasse and his fleet to overthrow the government that is currently defeating you
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 17:15
|
|
|
hallebarrysoetoro posted:2nd amendment should include the right to have one of those hammers you use to break the glass on fire extinguishers in order to summon the comte de grasse and his fleet to overthrow the government that is currently defeating you well you can own a demi-culverin, and I suppose you could bribe a frenchman to put it on a boat for you,
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 17:30
|
|
|
A brave patriot just exercised his constitutional right in Chattanooga  Or a terrorist attack? quote:CBS News reports a police officer and four Marines were shot in Chattanooga at a Navy recruiting center. ate shit on live tv fucked around with this message at 19:09 on Jul 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
Depends on their race.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 20:37
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:A brave patriot just exercised his constitutional right in Chattanooga Terrorist attack? No one really knows at this point. quote:Youssuf Abdullazeez was apparently a soil engineering specialist for the city stormwater department. Furious Mittens fucked around with this message at 21:17 on Jul 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 21:14
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:A brave patriot just exercised his constitutional right in Chattanooga Owning a firearm and shooting up recruiting stations are two completely different things.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 21:37
|
|
|
Genocide Tendency posted:Owning a firearm and shooting up recruiting stations are two completely different things.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 21:45
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:One is your patriotic duty and the other is the act of a deranged mind. I'll leave you each to decide which is which for yourselves. And already my Facebook page is filled with "If only those Marines had their side arms!"
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 21:47
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:And already my Facebook page is filled with "If only those Marines had their side arms!"
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
Furious Mittens posted:Terrorist attack? No one really knows at this point. He has a terrorist name so of course it's terrorism. Probably ISIS! No doubt one of those Sudden Jihadist things.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
If only there were some rules or regulations against these people going around with guns...some kind of gun free zone maybe, where people could go without fear of being murdered by deranged ccw holders, wait woops nvm
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 00:22
|
|
|
semper wifi posted:If only there were some rules or regulations against these people getting their hands on guns...some kind of gun free zone maybe, where people could go without fear of being murdered, wait woops nvm Gun free zones aren't supposed to be magical places where people can go without fear of being murdered.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 00:22
|
|
|
semper wifi posted:If only there were some rules or regulations against these people going around with guns...some kind of gun free zone maybe, where people could go without fear of being murdered by deranged ccw holders, wait woops nvm You're an idiot. Even Active duty, nobody but Security Forces or MPs carry their sidearms outside of a deployed zone.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 00:24
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:You're an idiot. Even Active duty, nobody but Security Forces or MPs carry their sidearms outside of a deployed zone. it's a complete mystery to me as to why, boy i wish there was somek ind of sign that would explain this curious occurrence to me
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 00:25
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:You're an idiot. Even Active duty, nobody but Security Forces or MPs carry their sidearms outside of a deployed zone. What's worse is the automatic assumption co-joined with Gun-Free Zone elimination is that these types of incidents would be completely eliminated. Add to that the fact that it ignores all of the murders in the U.S. that occur in places not marked as Gun-Free Zones (most of them).
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 00:26
|
|
|
semper wifi posted:it's a complete mystery to me as to why, boy i wish there was somek ind of sign that would explain this curious occurrence to me Hmmm, probably the statistics that son't share your point of view. If you honestly and truly believe the solution is gove all our recruiters side arms, where does it stop? Finance needs side arms? Uh Oh first shirt, don't go into the office without your side arm. Look out wing commander, you forgot your side arm. The solution to incidents like these is not 'Give people more guns' and is the NRA trademark, which also helps ensure that you can know its an argument from ignorance. You know where else is a gun free zone? Every. Single. Federal Installation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 00:38
|
|
|
C2C - 2.0 posted:What's worse is the automatic assumption co-joined with Gun-Free Zone elimination is that these types of incidents would be completely eliminated. Add to that the fact that it ignores all of the murders in the U.S. that occur in places not marked as Gun-Free Zones (most of them). What is the point of gun free zones, exactly?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 00:40
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:What is the point of gun free zones, exactly? Because we can't assume everyone and their loving open carry has the best intentions? Kind like how the military screens you psychologically before issuing you are weapon.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 00:42
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:What is the point of gun free zones, exactly? I believe the reason they do not let people other than MPs and security forces on bases run around with their guns, outside of training exercises, is because they have calculated they will lose fewer men that way.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 00:44
|
|
|
I like how people think that strict gun laws / bans will actually matter. Because if there is anything that we as the United States have an exemplary history of successfully enforcing bans. Prohibition... War on drugs... Yep... LeJackal posted:What is the point of gun free zones, exactly? Exactly what it sounds like. No guns by unauthorized personnel
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 00:47
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:What is the point of gun free zones, exactly? Security Theater.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 00:51
|
|
|
Genocide Tendency posted:I like how people think that strict gun laws / bans will actually matter. This is true. For example, we have a pretty exemplary history on banning construction outside of code, we're quite good at banning people from operating motor vehicles without licenses, we've been stellar at banning the use of asbestos in construction and in the use of DDT in agricultural spraying. It's kind of telling that the two things you listed are both substances--that is something it's really hard to ban. But again, the solution isn't the gun ban, it's changing America's gun-fetishist culture. It didn't used to be this way, it's a very new thing. The NRA used to admonish people about gun safety, about never carrying your gun loaded in a public place, about not thinking of yourself as a vigilante, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 01:00
|
|
|
It's amazing how the empirical evidence of gun control working in literally every single country its implemented is not a good enough argument.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 01:16
|
|
|
Chalets the Baka posted:It's amazing how the empirical evidence of gun control working in literally every single country its implemented is not a good enough argument. Which empirical evidence is this, exactly? Where is this evidence showing that gun control decreases violence, or prevent criminals from getting/using firearms, etc?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 01:18
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:Which empirical evidence is this, exactly? Where is this evidence showing that gun control decreases violence, or prevent criminals from getting/using firearms, etc? "We can't criminalize speeding, because then only the criminals can speed!"
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 01:21
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:But again, the solution isn't the gun ban, it's changing America's gun-fetishist culture. It didn't used to be this way, it's a very new thing. The NRA used to admonish people about gun safety, about never carrying your gun loaded in a public place, about not thinking of yourself as a vigilante, etc. Chalets the Baka posted:It's amazing how the empirical evidence of gun control working in literally every single country its implemented is not a good enough argument.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 01:22
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:But again, the solution isn't the gun ban, it's changing America's gun-fetishist culture. It didn't used to be this way, it's a very new thing. You know what would be a good start? Getting rid of GiP and TFR.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 01:37
|
|
|
Chalets the Baka posted:You know what would be a good start? Getting rid of GiP and TFR. Never really strayed into GiP, but most of TFR doesn't exhibit what I'd call harmful fetishism and they often call-out "gun nuts" in the news (and on the forums) who attach idiot politics to their gun obsession. Full disclosure: I'm a gun-owner, but not a TFR regular.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 01:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 07:44 |
|
|
Obdicut posted:This is true. For example, we have a pretty exemplary history on banning construction outside of code, we're quite good at banning people from operating motor vehicles without licenses, LoL I learned two things from this. 1 - you have never been to an area after a wide scale natural disaster. 2 - you don't live anywhere near a rural/farm area.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 01:41
|
|