|
stealie72 posted:Honestly, what's it like being so retarded that you think that not being able to at least try to stop someone form killing your family is OK? Quote me where I said that. Look, I'll spell it out for you more clearly. I have no problem with him having a gun and going back to save his family. In fact that would be a brave a laudable thing to do. What I'm saying is that a man who just woke up from getting knocked out with a baseball bat to the head stumbling into the room with a gun probably isn't going to do much but get himself killed, ultimately changing nothing other than the fact that he's dead now too. Guns are not a magical talisman that transforms you into Captain America or the Punisher in the presence of Bad GuysTM. I'm very sorry that this revelation upsets you so much. Who What Now fucked around with this message at 18:51 on Oct 16, 2015 |
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 18:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 17:13 |
|
|
Look, Who What Now has rationally calculated that the optimum and most likely outcome for your family in that scenario is for them to be raped and killed while you escape and try to summon the police. That way three people die instead of four. He has concluded that you are unlikely to have made a difference, therefore it should be illegal for you to assess the facts for yourself and make your own decision about the risks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 18:48
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Look, Who What Now has rationally calculated that the optimum and most likely outcome for your family in that scenario is for them to be raped and killed while you escape and try to summon the police. That way three people die instead of four. He has concluded that you are unlikely to have made a difference, therefore it should be illegal for you to assess the facts for yourself and make your own decision about the risks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 18:50
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:However we feel about firearms regulation, I think we can all agree that gun fanboys whining about restricted access to suppressors is really the thing that, beyond anything else, pegs them as comically self-absorbed to the point of justifying any and all contempt for them. Don't forget we want 50 state reciprocity.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 18:50
|
|
|
gohmak posted:That and suppressors are so much cheaper Finland. When you don't have to worry about a two hundred dollar tax and a 6-13 month wait, you don't need a ultra durable can Didn't some company try to get away with only the adapter that screws onto the barrel is the 'silencer' part and was basically durable and never needed to be replaced so that the baffles would be cheaper? I vaguely remember something like that but I assume the economies of scale made it not worth it because waiting 6+ months to buy a literal screw adapter is dumb. Fake edit: I was thinking of econ-cans and solvent-traps.  Pictured: A part you have to wait 6+ months and pay $200 for the privilege of buying. If your local chief of police lets you. e: I think that last one was the wrong picture. You can also buy the same thing on amazon but if you install it without a stamp, it's a felony. Makes perfect sense. http://www.amazon.com/Threaded-Adapter-Anodized-Aircraft-Aluminum/dp/B00PE0JPFW/ref=pd_bxgy_200_2?ie=UTF8&refRID=0SY4CB9AS9SPD15J4KZT Plinkey fucked around with this message at 18:57 on Oct 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Look, Who What Now has rationally calculated that the optimum and most likely outcome for your family in that scenario is for them to be raped and killed while you escape and try to summon the police. That way three people die instead of four. He has concluded that you are unlikely to have made a difference, therefore it should be illegal for you to assess the facts for yourself and make your own decision about the risks. I'm against anyone pushing for any gun regulation in any form in this country, HTH stealie72 posted:Eh, I'd have topped myself after, so death toll would have been the same. Please do not commit suicide.  Also see my edit
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 18:52
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:I'm against anyone pushing for any gun regulation in any form in this country, HTH A reasonable stance
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 18:53
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:I'm against anyone pushing for any gun regulation in any form in this country, HTH Yeah, saw your edit. I clearly misread your intent. Sorry about that 
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
Again: the question is not if there is some situation in which having a gun would be better for you than not having a gun. The question is if on the whole gun accessibility is socially beneficial. It isn't just about you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Look, Who What Now has rationally calculated that the optimum and most likely outcome for your family in that scenario is for them to be raped and killed while you escape and try to summon the police. That way three people die instead of four. He has concluded that you are unlikely to have made a difference, therefore it should be illegal for you to assess the facts for yourself and make your own decision about the risks. This sounds familiar: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...atheist-family/ Its safe to say that home defense fantasies don't actually become reality as often as you think they do.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:Again: the question is not if there is some situation in which having a gun would be better for you than not having a gun. The question is if on the whole gun accessibility is socially beneficial. It isn't just about you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
stealie72 posted:Nah, it is. Someday, maybe you'll be blessed to come to a point in your life journey when you can experience the joy of knowing that there is you and your family and then there is everything else. "We're surrounded by Muslims, queers, and darkies, Martha! Quick, barricade the door! Kids, get mah Ay-Arr 15, them thar two drum-magazines I duct taped together fer quickloading, mah high-powered strobe what ta' blind the hordes a' rapists with, the Keymaster, and mah 16x zoom scope!" "Dad it's just the Hendersons next door having a patio cookout." "THERE'S US AND THEM, BOY! US AND THEEEEEEEEM!" Who What Now fucked around with this message at 19:11 on Oct 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 19:05
|
|
|
stealie72 posted:Nah, it is. Someday, maybe you'll be blessed to come to a point in your life journey when you can experience the joy of knowing that there is you and your family and then there is everything else. Actually no, the condition of less gun availability is that each individual is at a lesser rate of being killed. I'm willing to grant that by getting a gun and selecting "betray" in the prisoner's dilemma you may personally give yourself a lower rate than that (although I am not certain of it) at the expense of everyone else, and so is the rational choice from a self-interested perspective, which is why you must be disallowed from doing so.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 19:08
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:To be fair if I could somehow magically whisk away all the guns in America into the heart of the sun and then we physically cut out the second amendment and peed on it and then an anti-gun force field was erected to allow us enough time to ratify new regulations to restrict the manufacture, import, and sale of firearms then I would be totally on board for that. It doesn't really matter what anyone's philosophical stance is. The barn door is open and the horses have made it almost to the horizon. This guy gets it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 19:08
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:To be fair if I could somehow magically whisk away all the guns in America into the heart of the sun and then we physically cut out the second amendment and peed on it and then an anti-gun force field was erected to allow us enough time to ratify new regulations to restrict the manufacture, import, and sale of firearms then I would be totally on board for that. Nah. Guns can be regulated meaningfully and their numbers can be dramatically decreased. The claim that they can't is just gun fanboy chaff to try to convince us to not even try, because their behavior clearly shows that they believe our success is plausible and imminent, and they are terrified.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:Again: the question is not if there is some situation in which having a gun would be better for you than not having a gun. The question is if on the whole gun accessibility is socially beneficial. It isn't just about you. Would you kill a friend to save two complete strangers? It's all about decreasing damage to society after all. Gotta look at the big picture, sorry tezzor's friend.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:Nah. Guns can be regulated meaningfully and their numbers can be dramatically decreased. The claim that they can't is just gun fanboy chaff to try to convince us to not even try, because their behavior clearly shows that they believe our success is plausible and imminent, and they are terrified. They are terrified because they're pussies constantly afraid of the world around them. But that doesn't make them wrong in this case.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
various cheeses posted:Would you kill a friend to save two complete strangers? It's all about decreasing damage to society after all. Gotta look at the big picture, sorry tezzor's friend. Who What Now posted:They are terrified because they're pussies constantly afraid of the world around them. But that doesn't make them wrong in this case.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
various cheeses posted:Would you kill a friend to save two complete strangers? It's all about decreasing damage to society after all. Gotta look at the big picture, sorry tezzor's friend. What part of "it's not just about me" do you not understand? Maybe you don't understand what we're talking about here. We're talking about what policies should be implemented that will be of the best general benefit. We're not talking about how an individual would act in the Pruno-induced Saw III nightmares of a white nationalist mental patient.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
stealie72 posted:He should ask his philosophy professor. Maybe they've discussed the one about throwing the train switch so that the train is only headed to one person.  Sorry, man, I calls 'em like I sees 'em.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 19:16
|
|
|
gun buybacks are morally unethical because they encourage people to steal guns from the collections of their unrestrained psychopath friends and sell them for pure profit. its not even difficult to pull off because gun owners are too stupid to store their weapons safely. as weve established in this thread already theft is the worst thing in the world and is punishable by massively prejudiced execution, so anything that increases theft rates is bad
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 19:18
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
Calling it a "buyback" is instructive as to the viewpoint of those who advocate for them. Unless the governmental entity which is performing the "buyback" owned the gun at some point in the past, then they're not "buying back" anything, as it was never theirs. Well, unless you're a communist and think there's no private property and everything should belong to the state, which, this being D&D, is probably not a viewpoint that is as uncommon as it should be.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 19:26
|
|
|
Haha, yes, please compare yourself to a civil rights era black man. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 19:27
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Haha, yes, please compare yourself to a civil rights era black man. Nah, he's got a gun. He's a pussy. Edit: This guy's a HUGE pussy. Look at all those guns 
stealie72 fucked around with this message at 19:31 on Oct 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
Look at all this misogyny.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
In actual serious talk, i think it's amazing how a large percent of people against guns seem to believe that the best course of action is to simply submit to an aggressor, even if you or your loved ones are facing immediate violence/death/rape/etc.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
Craptacular posted:Look at all this misogyny. Pro-Gun People are renowned for their tendency to vote for people who highly value women's rights.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Pro-Gun People are renowned for their tendency to vote for people who highly value women's rights. Largely because the Dems won't shut the gently caress up about useless things like "assault weapon" bans.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 19:37
|
|
|
Ozmiander posted:In actual serious talk, i think it's amazing how a large percent of people against guns seem to believe that the best course of action is to simply submit to an aggressor, even if you or your loved ones are facing immediate violence/death/rape/etc. Yes that's some quite serious talk you got there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 19:38
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:What part of "it's not just about me" do you not understand? Maybe you don't understand what we're talking about here. We're talking about what policies should be implemented that will be of the best general benefit. We're not talking about how an individual would act in the Pruno-induced Saw III nightmares of a white nationalist mental patient. Do you also think alcohol and drugs should be banned? They don't exactly bring a lot of benefits to society, do they? How far down the rabbit hole are you willing to go? I'm assuming it's just guns you hate, because you assume every last gun owner is some amalgam of a school shooter, fat racist redneck, a gang banger, and an inept retard first placing his hand on a firearm. It's like some sort of bizzare 4 headed strawman in your mind.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 19:38
|
|
|
Ozmiander posted:In actual serious talk, i think it's amazing how a large percent of people against guns seem to believe that the best course of action is to simply submit to an aggressor, even if you or your loved ones are facing immediate violence/death/rape/etc. It amazes me how large a percent of people who are for guns seem to believe that having a gun will allow them to fight off multiple armed attackers, likely by pressing in both thumbsticks (or Ctrl on the PC) to activate their bullet time ability.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
Mavric posted:Yes that's some quite serious talk you got there. It's a super common counter to "i'd get my gun and shoot the bastards!". I'm not speaking out of my rear end when i say i don't understand the mentality. I can understand people trying to do good by banning guns, but not "don't try, you'll just end up killing your wife/husband/child!".
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 19:40
|
|
|
stealie72 posted:Largely because the Dems won't shut the gently caress up about useless things like "assault weapon" bans. Agreed
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 19:40
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:It amazes me how large a percent of people who are for guns seem to believe that having a gun will allow them to fight off multiple armed attackers, likely by pressing in both thumbsticks (or Ctrl on the PC) to activate their bullet time ability. Wouldn't you rather try and fail, rather than living with the guilt of running away and leaving them to their fates?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 19:40
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Agreed Just want to correct myself here, I'm agreeing that Dems are stupid for pursuing assault weapon bans. Putting your love of rooty-tooty-point-and-shooties above the rights of real women, rights that are way more important than guns, still makes you a piece of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:It amazes me how large a percent of people who are for guns seem to believe that having a gun will allow them to fight off multiple armed attackers, likely by pressing in both thumbsticks (or Ctrl on the PC) to activate their bullet time ability. Of course, one guaranteed way to NOT fight off multiple armed attackers is to not be armed. Who What Now posted:Just want to correct myself here, I'm agreeing that Dems are stupid for pursuing assault weapon bans. Putting your love of rooty-tooty-point-and-shooties above the rights of real women, rights that are way more important than guns, still makes you a piece of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
Ozmiander posted:It's a super common counter to "i'd get my gun and shoot the bastards!". I'm not speaking out of my rear end when i say i don't understand the mentality. I can understand people trying to do good by banning guns, but not "don't try, you'll just end up killing your wife/husband/child!". People prefer that society function in such a way that assaults are rare, and it is a irresponsible solution to entrust every individual with the necessary skills and tools of self defense. -A gun owner who had to had to forcibly remove a violent intruder.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 19:44
|
|
|
Gaj posted:People prefer that society function in such a way that assaults are rare, and it is a irresponsible solution to entrust every individual with the necessary skills and tools of self defense. If people weren't lovely to each other, both sides would be happy. i could have guns for plinking, and they wouldn't object to them for safety reasons. Good luck to that though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 17:13 |
|
|
stealie72 posted:Nah, it is. Someday, maybe you'll be blessed to come to a point in your life journey when you can experience the joy of knowing that there is you and your family and then there is everything else. Look! I found the evil in the human soul!
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 19:46
|
|