|
Snowman Crossing posted:I voted straight Democrat for the first decade of my voting history. Then a few years ago I took up recreational shooting on a whim. lmao I thought this was a fakepost until the end, what a piece of poo poo
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2015 21:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 11:24 |
|
|
Snowman Crossing posted:I'm comfortable with putting it out there because, as someone who is indifferent to the human cost of a bustling domestic firearms industry, I couldn't care less about the moral judgment of your average fedora-wearing goon. You shouldn't care what I think, you should care about the well being of the people you admitted the republicans are hurting directly. Admitting you're a bad person doesn't make it OK to be a bad person. You don't even have the excuse of being delusional.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2015 22:16
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:The part I don't like is the poster suggesting regular inspections of a person's home to ensure that they are complying with proper firearms storage. It sounds like a quick way around the 4th Amendment protection against unreasonable searches. I don't think verifying you aren't using a loaded hand gun in a baby mobile is "unreasonable."
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2015 23:48
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Driving a motor vehicle on public roads while impaired puts other people in imminent danger. Owning an AR-15 does not. Pointing an AR-15 at other people does, which is why it's also illegal in most jurisdictions. Owning an AR-15 is very dangerous. Anybody suicidal with access to it has a much better chance of successfully killing themselves than if they didn't have access to a gun. This would mean that having a gun in your house makes it much more likely for someone who lives there to kill themselves, so you're also forcing people who aren't you to take a risk, potentially against their wishes.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2015 03:59
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:That still doesn't constitute an imminent danger the way that drunk driving or pointing a gun at people does. Unless you're saying there's some sort of affirmative legal duty to suicide-proof your house against potential future suicidal people. I can't really parse you second point; if you had a roommate who didn't like being in the same house as guns, couldn't they always move out? It's not as imminently dangerous but there's a reason the "responsible" method of owning a gun is having it secured inside a safe, so people don't have easy access to it. People not only have children, but also sometimes don't have the luxury of moving. It's also not an argument that the individual should be held liable if someone commits suicide, but an argument that the government has a vested interest in regulating guns to keep people safe because gun owners can't be trusted to be responsible on their own.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2015 04:22
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:
This would be a relevant point except gun owners are overwhelmingly the white men. Not exactly the equalizer you're pretending they are.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2015 05:16
|
|
|
The police as an institution are also violent cowards who should have their access to guns restricted, yes.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2015 05:21
|
|
|
various cheeses posted:So the mark of a great man is to be a victim and let others be victimized. Great idea Dave. The gun being the great equalizer is actually the best part of it, because it allows grandma to fight off a home invader, or a literal child to defend his home against burglars. The weak should fear the strong I guess? Or let the strong shoot babies. http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2015/06/19/whitehall-officer-involved-shooting.html We can post anecdotes at each other all day long but again gun owners are largely white men who as a group are already the "strongest." Edit: we could also improve the lives of the poor so they don't resort to crime, but I'm guessing you don't actually give a poo poo and are just happy to have more ammo to secure your right to own guns Lemming fucked around with this message at 05:28 on Oct 13, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2015 05:24
|
|
|
various cheeses posted:I'm pretty sure no one considers a cop shooting a dog and hitting a kid an example of a good gun owner. What is it with cops and shooting every dog they see anyways? I agree it's not a good move politically because people like you exist. I think it's more helpful to focus on other things in the short term. I still absolutely support more gun control, which is what we're discussing here, in the gun control thread.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2015 05:45
|
|
|
various cheeses posted:My goal is to see gun control gone as a political plank so we can focus on more effective solutions to reducing overall crime, rather than farting around in circles about guns. If your end goal with gun control is to punish the racist redneck strawman in your head, I don't think we'll see eye to eye on it. Why do you think gun control is about punishment? Even if reducing easy access to guns combined with oversight and monitoring of people who owned guns did literally nothing to the violent crime rate, reducing access to guns would save the lives of many suicidal people. The love white men have for their toys is less important to me than people's lives. It just sucks that we can't help those people by reducing their easy access to the guns that are irresponsibly strewn around everywhere.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2015 06:03
|
|
|
Lmao if that actually happened you would hand over all your guns with no fuss, as you are most certainly in the overwhelming majority of gun owners who are huge cowards.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2015 06:20
|
|
|
Snowman Crossing posted:Of course. Even the "cold dead hands" crowd, probably. But some are ideologically bound and would die on that hill. Not dying for your guns doesn't make you a coward, but it is what a coward would do. As is making other people die for their guns, which they do a lot.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2015 07:10
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:Actually Australia already tried this and they didn't get all, or even the majority, of people's guns. Turns out a lot of people would rather just keep their guns and not tell anyone, or bury them out in the desert, or whatever, rather than hand them over. Yes, they'd rather hide or give in than do the violent uprising fantasy that was being alluded to.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2015 07:28
|
|
|
various cheeses posted:So I should just throw up my hands and empty out my safe and say "oh well, such is the cost of progress!"? When a dog shits on the floor, you tell it no. I'm telling your dog no. Try thinking independently a bit, instead of blindly following the party line. various cheeses posted:A safe is a tough buy if you're poor. I think the poor should have equal opportunity in exercising their rights. Of course, if you can afford one you should certainly put your guns in there. I sure as hell do. ...by voting for the party that's explicitly trying to restrict the poor and minorities from exercising their legal rights to things like voting and abortion, both of which are immeasurably more important than buy a dangerous toy. Please stop pretending you give a poo poo about the poor. Just admit you are a selfish rear end in a top hat and don't give a poo poo about them, so you're voting R. Stop arguing in bad faith.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2015 18:03
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I simply don't believe you're posting in good faith anymore, like half of the posters on any given gunchat page support that view, you yourself conceded that many major politicians do but can't because its "not politically viable". Why the gently caress do you think its not politically viable? Amending the constitution is really hard, I think you've pointed that out yourself numerous times.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
various cheeses posted:I'll vote for democrats again when they pull their heads out of their asses on gun control. It's literally that simple. Make it happen folks. I'm not saying I don't believe you, I'm saying that you earlier made the argument that you think "the poor should have an equal opportunity in exercising their rights." You clearly don't really believe that, though, because you're willing to vote for the party that has already and continues to violate their rights in a non-hypothetical way, because of your pet issue. I'm calling you out on that. If you're going to argue for no gun control, at least be honest with us. "I care about having literally zero restrictions or impositions in any way on owning and using my shiny metal toy over the right of others to vote and the right of women to have control over their own bodies."
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2015 18:13
|
|
|
Snowman Crossing posted:The best part of all of this is I get to negate the vote of someone who is probably supremely well-informed, has the best interests of the public in mind, and supports righteous progressive policies like single-payer healthcare and education subsidies, simply because their party won't drop gun control as a platform. You're one of the better gun posters here because this is the kind of vile poo poo that they normally try to hide or disguise or dog-whistle. People reading this thread and think "jesus christ, what is wrong with this guy?" and it makes them a little more progressive. Thanks.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2015 18:17
|
|
|
various cheeses posted:I think the anti-abortion crowd is just as lovely as the anti-gun crowd. The problem is that the democrats were there, they were so close to putting gun control to rest, but unfortunately they went full retard and are pushing it again. Also I never said there should be zero restrictions or impositions, there absolutely should be, just not to the level you want them. I get that it doesn't affect you in any way, but it affects me - so I'm not going to vote for it until they give up. Right, you believe that making sure nobody passes any laws you personally deem too odious regulating your gun owning is more important than the right to vote of the poor and minorities and the right of women to have control over their own bodies. That's the only point I'm making, not that you wouldn't vote D if they dropped gun control. Edit: Amended first half of the statement Lemming fucked around with this message at 18:28 on Oct 13, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2015 18:23
|
|
|
Hitlers Gay Secret posted:Damnit, I'm sorry. It's too late! You already hurt his feelings. He's voting R now.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2015 18:33
|
|
|
meristem posted:One thing I'm interested about. All the talk about closing the gun show loopholes, better background checks and whatnot... this would only potentially affect new sales. What legal means are and/or should be open to people who want to protect themselves, or others, from someone who already has guns, but has only recently become aggressive? Shouldn't this issue to talked about as well? My guess is that it's a lot easier to regulate people getting new guns than regulate what people already have, so you go for the low hanging fruit first. Of course, in this case the low hanging fruit is being circled by a rabid dog, but, well.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2015 18:39
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:You mean other then being pro-choice, pro gay marriage, and having our republican governor pass the first universal healthcare law in the country? If you don't realize that local parties are vastly different from national parties that I don't know why the gently caress you think you're even qualified to comment on politics. That was in an overwhelmingly democratic state, so a pretty different situation. States that are overwhelmingly controlled by Republicans look basically like you would expect them to, ie Kansas.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2015 18:57
|
|
|
PCOS Bill posted:Like when George Zimmerman, a Hispanic, defended himself against a black attacker and suddenly he was an evil racist despite years of proof that he wasn't a racist. https://twitter.com/TherealGeorgeZ/status/639437773980758016 Not racist.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2015 20:40
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Someone should really shoot that guy. He did get in a gun fight, or maybe a gun standoff recently, I don't remember exactly. Either way, almost!
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
various cheeses posted:Did you really just say I should try to create a safer environment for a robber? Not confronting them is also safer for you, numb nuts.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2015 21:32
|
|
|
various cheeses posted:Stealing is wrong because you're depriving someone else of the poo poo they worked for. The prospect of getting killed is added incentive not to do so. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/02/12/montana-homeowner-prison-killing-teen-trespasser/23309195/ Why did they let you get internet access?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
various cheeses posted:If that guy is supposed to be your gotcha then lol. That guy is an absolute piece of poo poo and deserves to be removed from society and does not represent me at all. I don't leave my house unlocked like bait in a trap. I'm minding my own business in my locked home, not lying in wait like a trapdoor spider. I don't think they're bloodthirsty murderers, generally, I think they're largely cowards with fantasies of getting to kill someone, since it makes them feel strong.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
If you really don't want to get robbed it'd be more effective to lock your door and do the window bar thing and then tape labeled keys to your neighbor's houses on the door. Edit: Or burn your house down and live naked under a bridge
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2015 23:28
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Isn't the issue of "gun control" more of a cultural one over what the socially response to fear and sensationalism should be? All mortality in the United States is about 820 people per 100,000 every year, representing an average life span of 78.8 years - the longest its ever been. Almost twice as many people commit suicide with guns every year compared to homicide with guns, and your entire post ignores that completely. If gun control were instituted only for the sake of those people, it would be worth it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2015 23:43
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:same, but for abortion Yeah, making it harder to do something makes it harder to do something.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2015 23:51
|
|
|
I like how the gun nuts here mostly say they're for reasonable gun control measures and how 92% of gun owners think universal background checks should be a thing (http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2057), and then someone comes in talking about how they sell and give away guns to randos and their response is "im cumming"
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2015 18:17
|
|
|
JohnGalt posted:Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize one had to be the 'right' mind of minority. I guess it's okay to disproportionately limit the rights of minorities as long as you can convince them that it's for their own good. Even accepting your premise that liberals are trying and failing to curb the rights of minorities to own guns, why is that more important than how Republicans are literally today succeeding at curbing the rights of minorities to vote? Like, if both are bad, one has to be worse, and not being able to vote is objectively worse than not being able to own a gun.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
JohnGalt posted:Good thing the right to vote and the right to bear armalites are not mutually exclusive. Right, but in your fantasy scenario, voting for Democrats will take away the right of minorities to bear arms, compared to real life, where Republicans are taking away the right of minorities to vote. So even taking your lovely argument at face value, voting for Democrats is still the right thing to do.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2015 19:26
|
|
|
various cheeses posted:Wait I'm confused, did only the son commit suicide in the story? I kept seeing wife/son and wasn't sure if it was two suicides, or like an interchangeable person for the purposes of the thread. He could also have not had a gun in the house. No risk and all of the upside.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2015 02:02
|
|
|
bidikyoopi posted:Regarding amount of Tylenol per bottle, I'd like to see a study that supports what you're saying. You can absolutely still buy tubs of Tylenol even as a minor, so the availability of large quantities in a single place hasn't changed. As for the "weak and unenforced" firearm storage laws being effective in reducing suicide, South Korea has recently put restrictions on a pesticide that used to be used frequently in suicides with a high success rate: http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE98T05R20130930 quote:But a decade after Jang's brush with death, a ban on fatal pesticides is credited with cutting the number of suicides by 11 percent last year, the first drop in six years. The government restricted production of Gramoxone, a herbicide linked to suicides, in 2011 and outlawed its sale and storage last year. This is from 2013. Here's a link to the study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4452788/ Restrictions on firearms would save lives.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2015 02:20
|
|
|
bidikyoopi posted:South Korea is not the USA. Especially with regards to suicide, I would be cautious to compare a nation of 50mil with 27.3/100k suicide to a nation of 320mil with 12.1/100k suicides. Any regulations regarding access to methods of suicide in SK would be hard to relate to parallel US regulations. People who live in South Korea aren't aliens. The reason why suicide rates decreased is because that pesticide was easily accessible and had a high chance to kill you. Similar results in England with Tylenol packaging http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f403 The point is that suicides are largely a heat of the moment thing, and people will use what they have available. Making it more difficult to access those things leads to fewer people using it to kill themselves, and reduction in suicide rates overall, even when accounting for increases in other types of suicide (eg in the South Korea example there was a small uptick in carbon monoxide suicides, but not even close to making up for it). If you want to argue about the imposition on civil rights that's a legitimate argument to have, but the facts are clear that if people didn't have such easy access to guns, fewer people would kill themselves every year. It is a proven method.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2015 02:44
|
|
|
stealie72 posted:Yeah, why shouldn't I have to show my literacy certification card to vote. It's funny that people who are pro-gun and talk about how they vote against Democrats for gun control reasons use examples like this pretending to care about the rights of minorities because the Republicans they vote have already and are continuing to trample on minorities' rights to vote with actual, literal illegal poll taxes, as well as restricting the capability of poor and minorities to vote through restrictions on voting sign up periods, limitations on the locations and operating hours of DMVs which are often the only place to get the IDs to vote, as well as purging voter rolls so they turn up and then can't vote, and have publicly admitted these policies are in place to win them elections, but none of the pro-gun people care about that enough to not vote Republican.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2015 02:50
|
|
|
bidikyoopi posted:Again I point you to my post where I said There are very few things in most households that are as effective as killing you as a gun, because guns are easy, instant, and effective. People will use what they have available, generally, and also usually only try once. Youths aren't the only ones committing suicide, it's also in large part old people. The point is that restricting guns for everyone, even something as simple as mandating a safe with a key on the other side of the house, would reduce suicides. The point of this is that the argument we're really having is us saying "I think people having such easy and free access to guns isn't worth all the violence and suicide" vs "I think people having such free and easy access to guns is worth all the violence and suicide."
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2015 03:05
|
|
|
The right to vote is obviously more important than the right to own a gun because you could use the right to vote to get the right to own a gun without the need to risk your life in a civil war but you could not do the reverse.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2015 03:08
|
|
|
bidikyoopi posted:You can jump off most buildings and die pretty instantly. That also happens a lot. Yes, people do jump off buildings, and where it becomes enough of a problem they restrict access. It's also less common because it's harder to do and requires more effort. The science is clear that restricting access to easy, effective means of suicides saves lives, and gun suicides are the most common in the US. How is that not the argument we're having? If there was no gun violence or suicide, nobody would care at all about guns. It's literally the most important part of the argument. If 50% of the USA died every year from guns the 2nd amendment would be repealed immediately. If nobody died everybody would get free battleship cannons. It's the only argument.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2015 03:21
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 11:24 |
|
|
natetimm posted:In Australia, before the gun ban went into effect, shooting and hanging were both just about equally as popular a way to kill yourself. Gun suicides did decrease dramatically after the ban. Don't worry, though, because hangings took their place pretty much equally. As a matter of fact, even though guns were pretty much removed from the equation, the suicide rate continued to increase. The idea that the lethality of guns makes them a better method for killing yourself isn't really proven by science. Also, there's no evidence to show an actual decline in suicides after the ban in Australia, either. Basically, the entire argument you're putting forth is bullshit. That study is only for one particular gender and age group. It also started way less common in Australia. Currently, their gun suicide rate is roughly .6 per 100k compared to the overall suicide rate of about 10-11 per 100k. In America, the gun suicide rate is about 6.7 per 100k, compared to an overall rate of about 13 per 100k. The study I found which is referenced as a pretty good one that studied rates overall (http://andrewleigh.org/pdf/GunBuyback_Panel.pdf) had this to say: quote:Because there are so many more non-firearm suicides (and Basically, there's not a big enough sample size to be able to tell if total substitution occurred because they're lucky enough to not have so many gun suicides.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2015 04:49
|
|