|
Trabisnikof posted:There is over 300 million capitalists in America, you can't realistically expect to get rid of capitalism! one is a solution to the other comrade.
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 04:03 |
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Other than the fact that gun owners love ranting on easily traced online forums... Yes, do go on how how this method would ever be a viable one approved by the the american public.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
Yeah I dunno, getting rid of capitalism as a method of gun control seems a little out there for me. My friend brought up gun control on Facebook, something I would never do. It started a predictable fight full of people saying their side as what is obviously right and the other side as crazy nonsense for idiots. I can't see any sign that the gap in opinion between pro-gun and anti-gun people has narrowed in my life so far. I am pretty sure that that this situation change in my lifetime. Samurai Sanders fucked around with this message at 23:46 on Oct 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 23:41
|
|
|
BonoMan posted:However it boils down to: "I don't know the full answer." Nobody does. But to stick your fingers in your ears and go "LA LA LA GUN CONTROL IS NOT THE ANSWER LA LA LA" helps nothing. If you don't know what the solution is then you don't know what the solution is NOT either. It really isn't the answer though, unless the true goal is to eventually get people to slowly agree to an outright ban. Thats a fine goal to have if thats what would be needed to stop these shootings, in that context then you'd use these silly gun control laws to slowly educate the voters that nothing short of getting rid of them is going to do anything about school shootings. If the people collectively decide that mass shootings are a price they are willing to pay to keep their guns, then so be it, but thats really what we're talking about here, in the long run: is the right to own a handgun more important than significantly cutting down on school shootings?
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 23:42
|
|
|
Northjayhawk posted:I very strongly disagree with this, I'm not sure what part of the country you grew up in, but you may have a regional bias. No, again, since you're not paying attention, even the strictest gun regulation in the anglosphere world doesn't ban all guns. If you live on a farm, you're permitted to own multiple guns there. You just don't get to say, carry a handgun without a very good reason (and self defense is excluded because it's an obvious lie), and if you live in a drat suburb or city you can pretty much expect to keep your guns at ranges or out with a buddy in the countryside. Which is as it should be. This is where you whine about something about "well some people need to hunt to live" and all that is is evidence we need to greatly expand welfare and food assistance funding, which is much less hard than getting gun restrictions. Northjayhawk posted:It really isn't the answer though, unless the true goal is to eventually get people to slowly agree to an outright ban. Australia went from the sort of machine guns you've barely been able to buy int he Us since the 30s being widely available if you had the cash in some states to their pretty intense control in under 15 years. Your argument is entirely without merit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 23:42
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:Yeah I dunno, getting rid of capitalism as a method of gun control seems a little out there for me. I'm not even sure how serious I am when I type it, but it certainly isn't "a method of gun control" in and of itself. It's trying to identify channels of gun violence (and other violence and social maladies) and eliminate those channels. And poverty is a huge catalyst for violence. So... what can we do to eliminate poverty? Helping to eliminate gun violence would be, hopefully, a side effect of that change.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 23:43
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:There is over 300 million capitalists in America, you can't realistically expect to get rid of capitalism! We just need a really big wall to line all of them up against and some guns really big wall and some guns Trump is gonna build a really big wall perhaps this is his master plan Trump/Marx 2016 
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 23:44
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:No, again, since you're not paying attention, even the strictest gun regulation in the anglosphere world doesn't ban all guns. If you live on a farm, you're permitted to own multiple guns there. You just don't get to say, carry a handgun without a very good reason (and self defense is excluded because it's an obvious lie), and if you live in a drat suburb or city you can pretty much expect to keep your guns at ranges or out with a buddy in the countryside. Which is as it should be. The position that you can have a rifle, but you can't own a handgun without demonstrating a need is far more extreme and unacceptable to a very large number of people (particularly in the south) than you seem to believe. This compromise is just not going to work, unless argued and brought about very slowly over many decades.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 23:45
|
|
|
awesmoe posted:Look at the date on the letter The Sheriff of the county in Oregon with the school drafted this after Sandy hook?
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 23:45
|
|
|
Northjayhawk posted:It really isn't the answer though, unless the true goal is to eventually get people to slowly agree to an outright ban. Thats a fine goal to have if thats what would be needed to stop these shootings, in that context then you'd use these silly gun control laws to slowly educate the voters that nothing short of getting rid of them is going to do anything about school shootings. If the people collectively decide that mass shootings are a price they are willing to pay to keep their guns, then so be it, but thats really what we're talking about here, in the long run: is the right to own a handgun more important than significantly cutting down on school shootings? You are correct and I should have specified that when I say "Gun Control" I mean a ban on the average citizen having a gun at all (hand guns included). So, I should revise that to say a gun ban and not just "tighter gun control laws."
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 23:45
|
|
|
You guys, I've got it. Guns.... For weed. Trade in a gun, get a baggie of government issued sticky icky. It's the perfect solution.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 23:46
|
|
|
crazy cloud posted:We just need a really big wall to line all of them up against gently caress that, show them the sword.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 23:46
|
|
|
Thump! posted:gently caress that, show them the sword. Donald-senpai sighed as he drew his yooge hanzo steel...
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 23:46
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Australia went from the sort of machine guns you've barely been able to buy int he Us since the 30s being widely available if you had the cash in some states to their pretty intense control in under 15 years. Your argument is entirely without merit. You can not really compare how deeply ingrained American Gun Culture is to any other situation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 23:46
|
|
|
Northjayhawk posted:The position that you can have a rifle, but you can't own a handgun without demonstrating a need is far more extreme and unacceptable to a very large number of people (particularly the south) than you seem to believe. This compromise is just not going to work, unless argued and brought about very slowly over many decades. Those people are loving morons and have proven themselves untrustworthy with guns, especially handguns. Luckily, idiots like them aren't the only voters in the country. Again, America ain't special in loving guns as much as they love pie, tons of other countries have been all over guns, and then given them up by and large. Northjayhawk posted:You can not really compare how deeply ingrained American Gun Culture is to any other situation. Idiot gun lovers said this in Australia, and Britain, and tons of other countries. Gun owners have been a minority for decades upon decades, they ain't mainstream.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 23:46
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Australia went from the sort of machine guns you've barely been able to buy int he Us since the 30s being widely available if you had the cash in some states to their pretty intense control in under 15 years. Your argument is entirely without merit. I keep seeing Australia used as the example of a of successful gun control but how closely does the makeup of Australia resemble the US (to make a fair comparison)?
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 23:47
|
|
|
Northjayhawk posted:The position that you can have a rifle, but you can't own a handgun without demonstrating a need is far more extreme and unacceptable to a very large number of people (particularly in the south) than you seem to believe. This compromise is just not going to work, unless argued and brought about very slowly over many decades. I don't think what the south defines as acceptable is a very good benchmark.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 23:49
|
|
|
CNN now talking about 4chan. Very weird.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 23:49
|
|
|
BetterToRuleInHell posted:I keep seeing Australia used as the example of a of successful gun control but how closely does the makeup of Australia resemble the US (to make a fair comparison)? You can just ask how many black people there are in Australia, no need to pussyfoot around it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 23:49
|
|
|
Gravel Gravy posted:The Sheriff of the county in Oregon with the school drafted this after Sandy hook? Yes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 23:50
|
|
|
BetterToRuleInHell posted:I keep seeing Australia used as the example of a of successful gun control but how closely does the makeup of Australia resemble the US (to make a fair comparison)? We're both countries full of racist white people dominated by a colonial British culture who love to drive, to live in suburbs, and have vast uninhabited or nearly so wilderness.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 23:50
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Idiot gun lovers said this in Australia, and Britain, and tons of other countries. Gun owners have been a minority for decades upon decades, they ain't mainstream. What was the registration situation like in Australia and Britain prior to the ban? Basically your solution is to use the surveillance state to raid american citizens and take their property because we don't have a registry. Also while gun owners might be the "minority" 100 million people is a loving significant number.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 23:50
|
|
|
BetterToRuleInHell posted:I keep seeing Australia used as the example of a of successful gun control but how closely does the makeup of Australia resemble the US (to make a fair comparison)? Thankfully the place is chock full of poisonous fauna and that keeps their numbers sufficiently small that they can't cause any real trouble.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 23:51
|
|
|
Of course, we can't even get the political will to mandate background checks, so you don't need to go out and buy more ammo just yet.Branis posted:What was the registration situation like in Australia and Britain prior to the ban? Basically your solution is to use the surveillance state to raid american citizens and take their property because we don't have a registry. Also while gun owners might be the "minority" All they'd need to do is emminent domain the NRA's bulk mailing list. Problem solved without any surveillance state, as the gun nuts have eagerly collated the list for you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 23:51
|
|
|
BetterToRuleInHell posted:I keep seeing Australia used as the example of a of successful gun control but how closely does the makeup of Australia resemble the US (to make a fair comparison)? Is the comparison to a paper bag?
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 23:52
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Of course, we can't even get the political will to mandate background checks, so you don't need to go out and buy more ammo just yet. Like, literally all that is needed is for the President to say "Hey FBI, let people phone in background checks." There wouldn't even need to be legislation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 23:53
|
|
|
How come Kreider hasn't been posted yet?
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 23:53
|
|
|
Ok, I didn't mean makeup as in race, I meant gun ownership and relevant information like that, since the comparison is being made to gun bans in Australia and the US.. That was poor phrasing on my part.Badger of Basra posted:You can just ask how many black people there are in Australia, no need to pussyfoot around it. Come the gently caress on, man. Do you really think I'm trying to loving say that? BetterToRuleInHell fucked around with this message at 23:57 on Oct 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 23:54
|
|
|
Some jerkward on Fox just said that Obama's comments on the shooting is him trying to distract from the problems in the Middle East....
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 23:55
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:It's probably best the Australians don't have guns considering how virulently racist they are.  And yet they still managed gun control.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 23:55
|
|
|
FourLeaf posted:CNN now talking about 4chan. Very weird. Great, now Wolf is going to start using Spider-Man images between his segments.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 23:56
|
|
|
Gravel Gravy posted:I don't think what the south defines as acceptable is a very good benchmark. Usually not, but I do believe they very well could attempt another secession over the issue if a nationwide handgun ban and confiscation were attempted anytime soon. What I'm arguing is that if you want to somehow get rid of all the handguns, then this is a long-term ordeal that you could spend a lifetime fighting for. This is not a situation where you can win the white house, replace two judges, eke out a majority in congress, and voila all handguns are now banned. The enormous number of gun owners in the south are not going to simply shrug and say "oh well, we lost, here are my guns".
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 23:56
|
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:Great, now Wolf is going to start using Spider-Man images between his segments.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 23:57
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Like, literally all that is needed is for the President to say "Hey FBI, let people phone in background checks." There wouldn't even need to be legislation. Are you sure that's not banned under FOPA?
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
If anyone wants to watch Obama here it is https://www.whitehouse.gov/live/president-obama-delivers-statement-2
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
Northjayhawk posted:Usually not, but I do believe they very well could attempt another secession over the issue if a nationwide handgun ban and confiscation were attempted anytime soon. Well I suppose we are more than welcome to go against the will of the federal government. It worked before so let's try it again without a military. But then again you're arguing against something that would never be proposed nationwide so arguing this is just academic. Gin and Juche fucked around with this message at 00:00 on Oct 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
Grem posted:Some jerkward on Fox just said that Obama's comments on the shooting is him trying to distract from the problems in the Middle East....
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 23:59
|
|
|
Northjayhawk posted:Usually not, but I do believe they very well could attempt another secession over the issue if a nationwide handgun ban and confiscation were attempted anytime soon. Good, let em. After they've been ground into the dust a second time, we can re-do Reconstruction properly and not gently caress it up like last time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 00:01
|
|
|
4chan is a social club for beta males, according to CNN. October is going to be a fun month.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 00:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 04:03 |
|
|
Branis posted:What was the registration situation like in Australia and Britain prior to the ban? Basically your solution is to use the surveillance state to raid american citizens and take their property because we don't have a registry. Also while gun owners might be the "minority" Before the 90s gun law harmonization, it varied wildly from state to state in Australia. Britain had minimal registration of any guns originally, besides that you generally had to let the cops know if you had many. Also lol at you ranting about the surveillance state to take your guns. You people post pictures of your guns in loving HD detail on forums where your identity can be traced by a 17 year old 4channer and a free website. You don't need the NSA for that. 100 million people who have any guns at all, including old family heirlooms that wouldn't even fire. You keep trying to pretend like their going to join your charge of the Rascal Brigade rather than say "hell I'll take $500 for that hunk a junk". BetterToRuleInHell posted:Ok, I didn't mean makeup as in race, I meant gun ownership and relevant information like that, since the comparison is being made to gun bans in Australia and the US.. That was poor phrasing on my part. Well we know that currently in Australia there are over 3.2 million guns registered again, which finally beats the previous peak at 3.2 million guns estimated in 1996 when the new laws came in (the number was an estimate, because there was no comprehensive registration regime for all guns then!). Northjayhawk posted:Usually not, but I do believe they very well could attempt another secession over the issue if a nationwide handgun ban and confiscation were attempted anytime soon. I don't expect that this time they'll be able to get half the army and more of the officers on their side the way they did for slavery. This is a threat so empty it forms a vaccum. poo poo they won't even have the opportunity to try to get European powers to support them or grant neutral access for shipping, they're going to be allied directly with the union due to NATO. I guess we'll get to see the suburbs of the South patrolled by the French and Polish forces in joint watch with the US military - the cities of course won't be stupid enough to oppose the federal government.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 00:04
|
|