4 minutes ago, TheDivineHustle said:

Of course, I understand your point. It's hard for me to really determine exactly what would happen because the entire thing is dependent upon the situation and subjective to each individual. What I do know is that I and those that I serve with take pride and honor in what we do, and there'd have to be some really twisted shit going on for us to be content with an illegal deployment in our own country against our own people and our own families. Now, another country is different. We may not necessarily agree with our own presence around the world, but we do what we must. When we begin to talk about our own land, that's a totally different story man. Like I said, there's a difference between being deployed to a riot, and being deployed to take away rights. But the decision to continue obeying the government is subjective to each individual soldier. I, personally, and many others wouldn't stand for it, and I'm not afraid to say that.

 

Oh, I don't doubt that for a second.  I'm just saying that with the way politics is going, an idea like this is going from something that would be unthinkable to something that's being discussed.

4 minutes ago, t0y said:

the whole debate is centered around gun owners 1. wanting their rights as stated in the Constitution, and 2. wanting to defend themselves in case of a terror attack such as this one, or if someone is breaking into their house, purely for self defense. 

 

I hear you when you say that. But in case of a terror attack, having a civilian starting to shoot at whoever he thinks is the threat is just going to cause more chaos and make the work of officers even more difficult, as they won't only have to try to figure out who's the actual shooter, but also which one of the others is also a shooter, or an innocent. And as for the case of breaking into your house... How many times do you hear about people breaking into someone's house while they're actually inside? Because, personally, when I hear 'people breaking into house', I see a burglary, and burglers are not so stupid as to pay a house a visit without making sure no one is inside. I simply don't see the point of having a gun in both those cases, at all.

10 minutes ago, Hystery said:

I hear you when you say that. But in case of a terror attack, having a civilian starting to shoot at whoever he thinks is the threat is just going to cause more chaos and make the work of officers even more difficult, as they won't only have to try to figure out who's the actual shooter, but also which one of the others is also a shooter, or an innocent. And as for the case of breaking into your house...

 

1

Then do you mind explaining to me why a vast majority of police officers support gun ownership? Gun ownership inherently means that gun owners carrying are likely to get involved in a mass shooting situation, or any sort of tragic situation. I'm sure police know this, but still, hold overwhelmingly favorable views of guns. We can look at this recent church shooting. An armed citizen was able to contain the individual before he could (probably) wreck out and go on a shooting spree. It makes perfect sense as to why the police would support this. It makes their job easier.

 

Quote

How many times do you hear about people breaking into someone's house while they're actually inside? Because, personally, when I hear 'people breaking into house', I see a burglary, and burglers are not so stupid as to pay a house a visit without making sure no one is inside. I simply don't see the point of having a gun in both those cases, at all.

The criminal wants the loot, regardless of if I'm home or not. If it's a stupid criminal, which most of them are because they're caught, then they'll break in while I'm home. In that case, it's guns blazing.

 

 

Edited November 6, 20178 yr by TheDivineHustle

1 minute ago, Hystery said:

 

I hear you when you say that. But in case of a terror attack, having a civilian starting to shoot at whoever he thinks is the threat is just going to cause more chaos and make the work of officers even more difficult, as they won't only have to try to figure out who's the actual shooter, but also which one of the others is also a shooter, or an innocent. And as for the case of breaking into your house... How many times do you hear about people breaking into someone's house while they're actually inside? Because, personally, when I hear 'people breaking into house', I see a burglary, and burglers are not so stupid as to pay a house a visit without making sure no one is inside. I simply don't see the point of having a gun in both those cases, at all.

 

Well normally the civilian would be able to get shots off before the police even arrived, like at the church yesterday when a civilian was able to shoot and scare off the suspect which saved probably 10s more lives. This could also have been the case at let's say the Manhattan vehicle attack earlier this month, where if someone was walking down the West St. bike path and turned around seeing a car plowing towards them they could turn around and put shots into the car, or even when he got out at the very end although the NYPD did a good job shooting the suspect as soon as he got out of his vehicle, but nonetheless the civilian wouldn't be shooting at the suspect if there were 100 cops around them, but if they are alone and see the threat of more violence I am sure they would be able to save many lives. As for the break ins I hear about that, all the time, and a lot of those stories end with the burglars being shot or shot at, or even killed. Burglars are low lives, they aren't Harvard graduates, or professional thiefs, they don't plan out a robbery for weeks, they see a quick vulnerability and take it they dont care if there is anyone inside, they just want some money to buy some more crack.

1 minute ago, Hystery said:

 

I hear you when you say that. But in case of a terror attack, having a civilian starting to shoot at whoever he thinks is the threat is just going to cause more chaos and make the work of officers even more difficult, as they won't only have to try to figure out who's the actual shooter, but also which one of the others is also a shooter, or an innocent. And as for the case of breaking into your house... How many times do you hear about people breaking into someone's house while they're actually inside? Because, personally, when I hear 'people breaking into house', I see a burglary, and burglers are not so stupid as to pay a house a visit without making sure no one is inside. I simply don't see the point of having a gun in both those cases, at all.

 

Eh, the way I see it: so many people in America have guns.  You might as well have one too.

 

Either way, firearms are the Pandora's box of the United States.  The box is open, and it can't really be closed (of the estimated 644 million civilian owned guns in the world, 42% are in the US, and the US population is only 4.43% of the world).  The numbers are just too big.  You can't get rid of the guns.

 

The only thing really, that can change, is society.  

1 hour ago, t0y said:

 

Well according to my friend in the Guard, the Army, Navy, or Air Force cannot be deployed into the United States under any circumstances that includes fighting (to keep civilians under control) that job is up to the National Guard, which doesn't deploy with tanks, except overseas (as seen in past deployments of the Guard.) So really no, the Army cant be deployed into our streets at any scale against our civilians.

 

 

Your friend is wrong, incidentally. While the Posse Comitatus act normally forbids the Army or Air Force from enforcing civilian laws in the United States, there's a major exception: it forbids it "except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress." A number of federal laws explicitly say that the military can be used to enforce them. More generally, the Insurrection Act broadly allows the military to be deployed in the United States to uphold federal authority, enforce the laws, suppress insurrections and rebellions, etc., if the laws cannot be enforced using normal civilian means. There is no distinction between federalized National Guard troops and regular soldiers; neither can normally be used to enforce the law, and both can be used to suppress insurrections. Since at least 1807, the regular US military has always been authorized to put down armed rebellions when ordered by the President. The only time the National Guard can be used but regular troops can't is when the National Guard is on state duty.

 

To get back to the actual shooting: It looks like the shooter should never have been able to legally buy guns. He had a domestic violence conviction when he was in the Air Force, which means it was illegal for him to own a gun. Sadly, the Air Force apparently didn't enter the conviction into the right databases so it didn't pop up on the background check.

10 hours ago, Hystery said:

 

Freedom of travel is a universal right for every human being. Wearing shoes is a universal must-have if you don't want to hurt your feet. Owning firearms is an absolutely non-necessary right that leads to literally nothing other than dead people, because that's what guns are made for: they are made to kill people in the most efficient way possible. Your argument is non-sensical, and your way to try and belittle other people's arguments doesn't help proving your own point. Shoving your head in the sand like an ostrisch about problems that are related to firearms isn't going to solve anything either.

But also they can be used as a deterrent, yes guns were made for killing people, but the right to own a firearm is necessary. We use it in self defense. Imagine if only the government was allowed to use guns? What could be happening to us if that happened? Also, guns are also used for self-defense as well, which can help if you are getting robbed or if someone is about to attack you. And owning a gun doesn't mean just dead people, it COULD lead to reduced crime, but in big cities like Chicago, where I live, people use guns in self defense, but you know, dead people. It just matters how we use them, who gets them. But here, we have 2 examples in one, guns can kill, and guns can save lives.

2 hours ago, Ben said:

You've clearly failed to see my point, I never said they thought technology wouldn't become advanced. What I said is that they could not of foreseen that we would gain the ability to fire weapons such a high amount of weapons. Adding onto that, I don't have complete trust in my government, I doubt you'll find anyone who does, but for a country which refers to itself as the land of the free and a democratic nation, a lot of Americans seem to trust their Government so little that they require firearms to overthrow them, when the time comes. 

 

When you hear an American refer to the greatness of democracy, you are talking with a person who has had the wool pulled over their eyes by watching too many Hollywood films and listening to far too much mainstream news. We are not and never have been a democracy. The ONLY form of government more inherently evil than democracy is socialism, and not by much.

 

The 2nd amendment was written for the purpose of giving the populace the means and the will to defend themselves. That very much included, and was even specifically in response to, our own government. Anyone who has done even light reading into our history should know this.

 

2 hours ago, Sam said:

 

It's not inaccurate as there's nothing that any number of people carrying weapons could have done in Las Vegas.  There was absolutely no benefit to anyone there of having a weapon, and the only thing that could have come from carrying a weapon in Vegas would have been the increased burden of being in possession of a weapon during an active shooter incident.

 

There's any number of scenarios that could have happened from someone in the crowd, who was carrying, misidentifying another person within the crowd during the heat of the moment as being involved (by something as simple as a gesture or movement or so on), or a responding police officer noticing someone who was running away with a weapon bulging through their clothing, or exposed by their shirt lifting up as they ran, or whatever else.  Nothing good could have come from someone carrying a weapon in that crowd in Las Vegas.

 

Let's remember that shooting situations aren't cut and dry.  There were reports of multiple shooters in Las Vegas, nobody had a clue what was going on at first.  I don't see how anyone can claim that during that chaos, there would have been any benefit from anyone in that crowd using or carrying a weapon.

 

It was and is inaccurate, I'm sorry. You selectively chose a scenario that is extreme in it's uniqueness and then made a bunch of false assumptions that are not backed by any data, just your idea of what it might be like... ending with a claim that is the polar opposite of what the facts are. That is the very definition of inaccurate!

 

If there are so many scenarios that could happen from an armed person in the crowd, then it should surely be easy to find a few to support your claims. Where are they? The FACTS are that it is almost unheard of for armed civilians to be anything except a boon to law enforcement. That is why police are so pro-gun/pro-2nd amendment. I'm not saying that there have never, ever, ever, ever been a mistaken identity, or that there have never been any issues with conceal carry individuals, but the numbers of those situations are so amazingly low when compared with how many times every single year that they are drawn and used in real life scenarios.

 

Anyone can wax poetic about a subject and make it sound like it would be reasonable, but presenting any type of relevant data point is much harder. I can pop a few words into google and show you twenty+ scenarios where mass murderers were stopped by conceal carry people and it never got news time. I can get you hundreds and hundreds of where a violent crime, etc was stopped as well. I challenge you to supply these scenarios where a conceal carry interfered in a negative way or caused the mass confusion that you postulated about.

 

 

2 hours ago, Sam said:

I think you're being selective in your use of facts, though.  Yes, it is true that states with higher gun volumes do not have higher rates of violent crime -- but they do have higher rates of murders committed with firearms.

 

This is the part that nobody on either side seems to understand though.  Gun control doesn't stop violent crime, and it doesn't decrease the murder rate as the left would have people believe.  It really doesn't, and there's facts which are constantly quoted by the right which are accurate and do disprove this.

 

For instance, in the UK, we banned handguns in 1996.  From 1990 until the ban, the murder rate was somewhere between 10 and 13 per one million people.  The rate actually went up after the ban, to 18 per one million in 2003 but then fell to 9 per one million in 2014.  Obviously, gun control has nothing to do with the murder rate, there's still just as many (and in some years more) murders now with gun control than before (official statistics below): 

 

You are making my argument for me! There in nothing deceptive in my facts. States with higher gun volume = lower rate of violent crime. States with lower gun volume = higher rate of violent crime. A higher rate of murders committed by firearms is an ancillary fact that has no bearing on the argument. Yes, there are more gun murders where there are guns available, but the murder rate didn't increase, it was just the tool used to commit the murder. That is the exact point being made.

 

If you follow the statistics down that rabbit hole you will find that the inverse is usually true... more guns = lower murder. So more guns equates to, in the majority of cases, a lower crime rate, a lower murder rate... BUT a higher rate of gun deaths which are part of the statistics just listed. How is not pointing that out being selective in my facts? It is irrelevant. Who cares what a murderer used to commit his act if the overall rates decline with higher ownership?

 

Gun control is the same stick, just the opposite side of it. Gun control doesn't prevent violent crime in any way and statistically speaking has an inverse reaction. Again... that is the whole point and isn't deceptive or obfuscating in any way.

 

2 hours ago, Sam said:

I do understand where you are coming from when you say that the stats are in your favor, but please also understand that most statistics which you are presented with will be very selective, designed to reinforce bias in one way or an another.  Lots of people pay lots of money to do that, including the 38 million dollars spent by gun rights groups during the 1990 election cycle (which is quite the amount for back then).

 

If my stats are selective and being presented in a way to produce a bias, please show me stats that I am obfuscating. Statistics can be applied to further an agenda, yes. That is a statement of fact. Unfortunately, you are a victim of doing exactly what you claim, above. Stating that gun homicides increases in areas where there are more guns means what exactly? Nothing. The murder rate and violent crime rates went down, but gun homicides increased. And? What selectively hidden info was used in that statement beyond drawing an innate bias against guns by singling it out?

 

2 hours ago, Sam said:

One interesting thing about comparing gun stats between countries is Switzerland, though.  Firearm ownership in Switzerland is as close to the US as you'll get in the developed world:

• Switzerland guns per 100 people: 46
• United Stats guns per 100 people: 89

The gun homicide rate in Switzerland is 7.7 per 1 million.  Yes, it's more than in any other European country, but still way less than the United States (29.7) (again, UN data)

 

Just saying, the stats aren't necessarily in your favor -- but they aren't really in favor of gun control either.

 

The stats are in my favor. Overwhelmingly so. You are conflating gun homicide with homicide, first of all. Why? Is a murder by gun somehow more evil than a murder by stabbing or beating or drowning? Just because a certain tool was used, doesn't imply that without the gun, the murder wouldn't have happened. The exact opposite is usually true in that availability of guns decreases the rates of murder and violent crime overall.

 

Also, please keep in mind the fact that I touched upon earlier. Almost 50% of our violent crimes are committed by less than 7% of our population. It is abhorrent that such facts get ignored, because the rates that America suffers from is directly and negatively affected by a tiny sub-set of our population. Due to the slavery in our past and the victimization mindset prevalent today, it is considered racist to point these things out, but they adversely hurt the real statistics that the rest of the country lives by. It isn't a race issue, for any budding white supremacists reading this, it is a culture issue. Blacks that get away from the culture that is cultivated in those societies rapidly decrease the rates at which they commit violent acts. Again, it isn't a race issue, but a culture one.

 

The rate of crimes committed by this tiny sub-set of our population can not be addressed due to the accusations of racism when simple facts are mentioned. Until we, as a nation, can have an honest talk about the issue, it is not likely to change or get any better. Those areas are controlled by those that don't want change. So please keep in mind that when you compare the U.S. stats to other countries, the majority of the U.S. has nowhere near as an alarming number as it at first appears.

 

Consider it akin to your Muslim refugee problem. Until it can be openly discussed and in an honest format, it will not get better and will likely continue to get much worse.

 

2 hours ago, Hystery said:

I hear you when you say that. But in case of a terror attack, having a civilian starting to shoot at whoever he thinks is the threat is just going to cause more chaos and make the work of officers even more difficult, as they won't only have to try to figure out who's the actual shooter, but also which one of the others is also a shooter, or an innocent. And as for the case of breaking into your house... How many times do you hear about people breaking into someone's house while they're actually inside? Because, personally, when I hear 'people breaking into house', I see a burglary, and burglers are not so stupid as to pay a house a visit without making sure no one is inside. I simply don't see the point of having a gun in both those cases, at all.

 

This is more disinformation biased by a certain ideal of what would transpire rather than what actually happens. Where are the reports of this happening? Where are these hypothetical crazed gun owners who are drawing their firearms and indiscriminately firing at whomever he thinks is a threat during a moment of cusp? I can tell you. They are in your imagination because they aren't real. If that were the case, then stories would be all over the place of maniacal gun owners. The mainstream news are extreme left leaning people who would be salivating at the mouth for a story that berates gun owners and gun ownership, so where are the data points or stories outside of your own conjecture?

 

Look, I'm not saying that every single person in America who carries a gun or owns them even, are pure angels who never do any wrong... but the fact remains that once you strap on a firearm to your ankle, waist, or shoulder... you are faced with a very real and palatable understanding that your actions carry an irreversible set of consequences. Most that own firearms don't act in the way that you guys keep trying to portray them and this is demonstrably shown by an amazing lack of evidence for your arguments. As many gun owners that use their guns every year in a multitude of ways... yet there is a gaping, empty hole of data and stories where your versions of gun owners should be. Interesting, eh?

7 hours ago, Dominik W. said:

Imagine if only the government was allowed to use guns? What could be happening to us if that happened?

 

You mean, for example like in most of Europe? We aren't in dictatorial regimes as far as I'm aware. Why would it be any different in America? Do you really fear that much that the land of freedom and opportunity would turn into a third world regime? 

 

6 hours ago, Narcissus said:

The ONLY form of government more inherently evil than democracy is socialism, and not by much.

 

> says socialism is more evil than democracy

> proceeds to then say people imagine things based on misconceptions of Hollywood and such

 

Holy crap I didn't think I'd ever see such an ironical contradiction in one post on this website, but yep, here it is. You obviously have absolutely no idea of what socialism is, so I'd suggest you to not take people like they're dumber than you like you do since 3 pages if you really wish to tell such horrible inaccuracies. Look up at what socialism is as politics, it'll only help you. 

 

As for my assumptions, they're, as their names seem to indicate, only assumptions. I don't see why they would be any less valid than yours however, I doubt you hold the ultimate and indisputable proof on the topic, unless I missed the memo? 

Edited November 7, 20178 yr by Hystery

1 minute ago, Hystery said:

You mean, for example like in most of Europe? We aren't in dictatorial regimes as far as I'm aware. Why would it be any different in America? Do you really fear that much that the land of freedom and opportunity would turn into a third world regime? 

 

Yes, look at Europe. How is the EU treating you? Losing your sovereignty is hardly an example of how free you are.

 

1 minute ago, Hystery said:

> says socialism is more evil than democracy

> proceeds to then say people imagine things based on misconceptions of Hollywood and such

 

Holy crap I didn't think I'd ever see such an ironical contradiction in one post on this website, but yep, here it is. You obviously have absolutely no idea of what socialism is, so I'd suggest you to not take people like they're dumber than you like you do since 3 pages if you really wish to tell such horrible inaccuracies. Look up at what socialism is as politics, it'll only help you. 

 

As for my assumptions, they're, as their names seem to indicate, only assumptions. I don't see why they would be any less valid than yours however, I doubt you hold the ultimate and indiscutable proof on the topic, unless I missed the memo? 

 

The only contradiction is the one you imply because I disagree with your world view. My views HARDLY come out of Hollywood as Hollywood does everything it can to show Socialism in the best light. Socialism, at it's very core, is based on the premise of theft. Stealing is evil and wrong. Sorry. When a form of government derives it's very basic ideology on stealing, I don't see how it can go any direction but down. Democracy is only a tiny step better as it is premised on majority rule, and woe to the ones that find themselves outside the majority. 

 

I love how you avoid all the things that I've said in this topic that demonstrated how absolutely absurd your claims were and yet you neither acknowledge your mistakes or try to refute me. You just continue bouncing around throwing baseless assumptions and childish comments in the hopes that something will stick. You have been wrong on every aspect of how the U.S. government works, the 2nd amendment, statistics on gun violence, and every other subject that you decided to opine on... yet here you are, still attempting to argue because you don't like that someone argued back with facts.

 

Forget everything else and just listen to me... The 2nd amendment is beyond your kin. It is a freedom you have never been afforded and likely never will. You simply cannot understand what it means to fight against losing something that you have never had and never will. You have likely spent your whole life hearing the most outrageous things about gun ownership in the U.S., the vast majority being untrue and the rest being outliers and hyperbolic nonsense. I do not blame you for not understanding. Hell, there are many citizens here that don't comprehend it... it would be unrealistic to assume that you would.

 

I do take umbrage with your caustic attitude towards things you don't know anything about. Educate yourself. You have correlated rumor and innuendo with facts and represented them as such. You remind me of a person who swears that shark attacks are caused by eating ice cream. Don't believe it? Look at the graphs! Every time there is an increase in the consumption of ice cream... there is also an increase in shark attacks! Aghast! Ice cream causes shark attacks! Forget the fact that both gain an increase due to warmer weather and a decrease in colder weather. No, no, no! Ice cream causes it!!!!

 

Learn the difference between correlation and causation. Learn how a system of government works before commenting on it. Learn what the Socratic Method is. Learn how to use it to reach obvious conclusions. Learn how to base arguments on facts, statistics, and reality rather than wants. Most importantly. Learn Google.com.

33 minutes ago, Narcissus said:

 

Yes, look at Europe. How is the EU treating you? Losing your sovereignty is hardly an example of how free you are.

 

As far as I'm aware, the EU didn't come into my home to take my things yet. EU is politics. You go in politics with guns now? What if your state dictates a law, but the Supreme Court dictates otherwise and your state has to follow it? It's pretty much an equivalent of the EU, would you grab your guns and go slaughter the Supreme Court judges? Your arguments make less and less sense over the pages.

 

33 minutes ago, Narcissus said:

The only contradiction is the one you imply because I disagree with your world view. My views HARDLY come out of Hollywood as Hollywood does everything it can to show Socialism in the best light. Socialism, at it's very core, is based on the premise of theft. Stealing is evil and wrong. Sorry. When a form of government derives it's very basic ideology on stealing, I don't see how it can go any direction but down. Democracy is only a tiny step better as it is premised on majority rule, and woe to the ones that find themselves outside the majority. 

 

No. No, it's not. It simply isn't. Plenty of countries in EU have a socialist government at the moment. France had one between 1981 and 1995, and between 2012 and 2017. Guess what? They didn't steal anything. And they were socialists, somewhat following the socialism ideology. But, gasp, we didn't get our houses robbed by the state! How preposterous, am I right? Unless, of course, you actually know what socialism is and means, in which case it makes perfect sense to not get robbed by a socialist. Your idea of socialism is not only biased, but wrong. Now, I don't say socialism is the best ideology in the world, from personal experience their politics kinda sucks, but it's absolutely not what you think it is or what you describe. So... Learn Google.com?

 

33 minutes ago, Narcissus said:

 You just continue bouncing around throwing baseless assumptions and childish comments in the hopes that something will stick.

 

The irony in this part is so thicc I could cut it with a knife. Or shoot it with a gun! Hah! Get it? Kinda funny you them tell me I've been wrong on everything about the 2nd amendment, and yet here you are trying to teach me a lesson about something (as in, socialism) I've experienced myself. What do they say? Don't do to other people what you wouldn't like them to do to you? Yeah, I think it's that.

 

33 minutes ago, Narcissus said:

I love how you avoid all the things that I've said in this topic that demonstrated how absolutely absurd your claims were and yet you neither acknowledge your mistakes or try to refute me. You have been wrong on every aspect of how the U.S. government works, the 2nd amendment, statistics on gun violence, and every other subject that you decided to opine on... yet here you are, still attempting to argue because you don't like that someone argued back with facts.

 

Someone arguing back with facts. Yet where are they? Because, as far as I know, your words aren't some kind of godlike speech that can't be disputed. What you say isn't worth more or less than what I say. So, I'll put the assumptions I said earlier, and I'll wait for you to provide FACTS to them, then we'll discuss, how about that?

 

1/ Decrease of civil gun ownership will not increase crime rate

2/ Increase of civil gun ownership will only make police work harder, because not only officers will have to deal with criminals, but also will need to figure out which person is a criminal, and which one is actually a civilian shooting back, or if it's not simply some kind of gang related violence, it will also only cause chaos in situations where dozens of people are involved (one guy starts spraying in the crowd, a civilian pulls out his gun to shoot back, another civilian sees that civilian shooting back and imagines it's the real shooter and shoots him, so on and on). It'll only lead to more dead people.

3/ The 2nd amendment is an outdated principle that was written in an entirely different political context. Your government will not overreach you now. And if it really wanted to do so, it'd use much smoother ways to do it. Funny how people talk about an overreaching government when all they do all day is posting pictures of themselves on social networks describing everything they do.

4/ Stricter and more thorough background checks are required for gun ownership to avoid anyone unstable or dangerous to get their hands on a weapon. I doubt your life depends on the couple more days you'd have to wait to get your new shiny killing machine toy.

5/ You don't need 3 handguns, 5 shotguns and 2 assault rifles to defend yourself. A limit of 1 or 2 handgun per household, with one or two clips each is more than enough to defend yourself. You're not going to war, you just want to defend yourself against someone.

 

That's only a portion, but we'll see what FACTS you bring. And by facts, I mean hard evidence, not "I feel that" or "I say that".

 

33 minutes ago, Narcissus said:

Forget everything else and just listen to me... The 2nd amendment is beyond your kin. It is a freedom you have never been afforded and likely never will. You simply cannot understand what it means to fight against losing something that you have never had and never will. You have likely spent your whole life hearing the most outrageous things about gun ownership in the U.S., the vast majority being untrue and the rest being outliers and hyperbolic nonsense. I do not blame you for not understanding. Hell, there are many citizens here that don't comprehend it... it would be unrealistic to assume that you would.

 

"Beyond your kin". What next, I'm lesser than you? I'm part of an inferior people? Listen to yourself for a second. No wonder I'm here fighting with you, do you even read what you type? Are you somewhat superior to others? Are you somewhat always right and others always wrong? Because everytime you reply to someone, that's exactly how it sounds and feels.

 

33 minutes ago, Narcissus said:

I do take umbrage with your caustic attitude towards things you don't know anything about. Educate yourself.

 

Again, read what you type. So what, I should educate myself, but not you? Would you happen to somehow know everything about everything, a living encyclopedia? Please. You don't even know what socialism is, and you come and tell me, or well, not even tell me, the way it's written, you almost order me (hopefully not with a gun on my head, hah!) to educate myself. Do you feel that smug sentiment that radiates from you when you reply not only to me, but also others, in such a way? That feeling of haughtyness, superiority? It's toxic. Have you ever considered to talk to the person in front of you like an equal? That would surely make this discussion a lot less toxic. I'll wait and see if this happens.

Edited November 7, 20178 yr by Hystery

1 minute ago, Hystery said:

As far as I'm aware, the EU didn't come into my home to take my things yet. EU is politics. You go in politics with guns now? What if your state dictates a law, but the Supreme Court dictates otherwise and your state has to follow it? It's pretty much an equivalent of the EU, would you grab your guns and go slaughter the Supreme Court judges? Your arguments make less and less sense over the pages.

 

I love the comparison of the states vs federal government, and the false equivalency to the EU. You were a sovereign nation beholden to your government only. Now you are beholden to your government who is now beholden to the EU... yet that is somehow comparable to our system of government?!? Do you even remember when the great idea that was the EU started? It was supposed to be financial in nature... yet look at it now.

 

1 minute ago, Hystery said:

No. No, it's not. It simply isn't. Plenty of countries in EU have a socialist government at the moment. France had one between 1981 and 1995, and between 2012 and 2017. Guess what? They didn't steal anything. And they were socialists, somewhat following the socialism ideology. But, gasp, we didn't get our houses robbed by the state! How preposterous, am I right? Unless, of course, you actually know what socialism is and means, in which case it makes perfect sense to not get robbed by a socialist. Your idea of socialism is not only biased, but wrong. Now, I don't say socialism is the best ideology in the world, from personal experience their politics kinda sucks, but it's absolutely not what you think it is or what you describe. So... Learn Google.com?

 

I. can't. do. this.

 

Hyperbole much? So, because your houses weren't robbed by the state, neither you nor anyone else had wealth in one form or another taken from you and given to another? Correlation. Causation. Socratic Method. One is not necessarily indicative of the other. Redistribution, of any kind, is theft. You are stealing it at the point of a gun and giving it to others. That is theft. It is evil, wrong, and immoral. Forced altruism isn't altruism. Just an FYI. 

 

1 minute ago, Hystery said:

The irony in this part is so thicc I could cut it with a knife. Or shoot it with a gun! Hah! Get it? Kinda funny you them tell me I've been wrong on everything about the 2nd amendment, and yet here you are trying to teach me a lesson about something (as in, socialism) I've experienced myself. What do they say? Don't do to other people what you wouldn't like them to do to you? Yeah, I think it's that.

 

The difference being that I have established myself as a critical thinker. You have not. You HAVE been wrong on every single point I mentioned. You don't directly refute it because you can't. Instead, you try and twist away to demonstrate that I am doing what I accused you of doing. I have not. Taking from group A and giving it to group B is theft. I didn't assume that you were wrong from the beginning, I allowed you to prove it.

 

1 minute ago, Hystery said:

Someone arguing back with facts. Yet where are they? Because, as far as I know, your words aren't some kind of godlike speech that can't be disputed. What you say isn't worth more or less than what I say. So, I'll put the assumptions I said earlier, and I'll wait for you to provide FACTS to them, then we'll discuss, how about that?

 

Sure.

 

1 minute ago, Hystery said:

1/ Decrease of civil gun ownership will not increase crime rate

 

https://crimeresearch.org/2017/04/number-murders-county-54-us-counties-2014-zero-murders-69-1-murder/

 

The short version: 54% of US counties had ZERO murders, 2% of counties have 51% of the murders. Those 2% hold the strictest  gun laws in the country. This also goes back to what I mentioned earlier about a tiny sub-set of the population (less than 7%) being the cause of ~50% of violent crime.

 

1 minute ago, Hystery said:

2/ Increase of civil gun ownership will only make police work harder, because not only officers will have to deal with criminals, but also will need to figure out which person is a criminal, and which one is actually a civilian shooting back, or if it's not simply some kind of gang related violence, it will also only cause chaos in situations where dozens of people are involved (one guy starts spraying in the crowd, a civilian pulls out his gun to shoot back, another civilian sees that civilian shooting back and imagines it's the real shooter and shoots him, so on and on). It'll only lead to more dead people.

 

I can't prove or disprove the latter part of this because it is filled with the same absurd mental gymnastics you attempted earlier. It is a loaded question... like me asking you if you have stopped beating your wife. You can't answer yes or no because either answer adheres to the fallacy that you are a wife beater. (I'm assuming here that you aren't)

 

The first part is simple to prove as it was already proven by TheDivineHustle earlier in this same thread.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/438327/gun-control-police-officers-overwhelmingly-support-second-amendment-rights

https://www.policeone.com/gun-legislation-law-enforcement/articles/6186552-Police-Gun-Control-Survey-Are-legally-armed-citizens-the-best-solution-to-gun-violence/

 

1 minute ago, Hystery said:

3/ The 2nd amendment is an outdated principle that was written in an entirely different political context. Your government will not overreach you now. And if it really wanted to do so, it'd use much smoother ways to do it. Funny people talk about an overreaching government when all they do all day is posting pictures of themselves on social networks describing everything they do.

 

This isn't easily refutable because until it happens, it is a negative and a negative cannot be proven. This is merely a weak willed attack at something you don't understand and was explained earlier, by me, to you, in numerous ways, that you refused or were unable to understand.

 

Your opinion, having demonstrated your lack of understanding of U.S. laws, statistics, and form of government, holds as much credibility as it deserves.

 

1 minute ago, Hystery said:

4/ Stricter and more thorough background checks are required for gun ownership to avoid anyone unstable or dangerous to get their hands on a weapon. I doubt your life depends on the couple more days you'd have to wait to get your new shiny killing machine toy.

 

First off, your snide little comments are as worthless as your critical thinking skills. Firearms are not toys. There are already background checks... in what way should they be more thorough? No background check, psychological evaluation, etc will ever stop everyone who shouldn't have access to firearms, from getting access. There has to be a balancing act between restricting the right of a free citizen and making sure that everyone is checked. We do that already. While it isn't fool proof, it never will be. It is the same as criminals getting guns in a banned country. Nothing can stop them all.

 

1 minute ago, Hystery said:

5/ You don't need 3 handguns, 5 shotguns and 2 assault rifles to defend yourself. A limit of guns by 1 or 2 handgun per household, with one or two clips each is more than enough to defend yourself. You're not going to war, you just want to defend yourself against someone.

 

The very premise of your statement relies on your ignorance of the fact that here, in the U.S., firearm ownership is a RIGHT. It is an inherent right. Neither the government, nor anyone else, has the authority to take away that right. Something you have failed to understand from the beginning of this thread. Can your government limit how much water you have in your refrigerator? Water being, I assume, a right that you have... would you balk at them telling you, not due to anything other than their authority, that you can only have two bottles of water at any one time?

 

Of course you would balk at that! Well, you are from France... but MOST people would balk at a right being limited.

 

Having said all that, you again fail to understand another part of the 2nd amendment which has been explained to you in numerous different ways: our right to bear arms is, in very large part, so that we can fight our government if it becomes too tyrannical. Having that same government tell us that we can only have XYZ (of whatever ilk happens to be catchy today), goes against the very reason the 2nd amendment was written. Obviously, you don't understand this and for your lack of understanding, I'm sorry.

 

1 minute ago, Hystery said:

That's only a portion, but we'll see what FACTS you bring. And by facts, I mean hard evidence, not "I feel that" or "I say that".

 

Which is all that you have done since the thread started. Every time you were proven wrong, you just came back with something else... ignoring your failed attempts at subverting facts for your failed ideologies.

 

1 minute ago, Hystery said:

"Beyond my kin". What next, I'm lesser than you? I'm part of an inferior people? Listen to yourself for a second. No wonder I'm here fighting with you, do you even read what you type? Are you somewhat superior to others? Are you somewhat always right and others always wrong? Because everytime you reply to someone, that's exactly how it sounds and feels.

 

Did I say that you were lesser? Inferior? I said that the understanding of something you have never had is beyond your kin. Obviously, it is. Let me make it simple so you understand:

 

If man A meets man B... man A from an ocean village and man B from a mountain village... man B, having never seen the ocean and lacking any understanding of what it is other than man A trying to explain it to him... man B will never fathom what it means to stand on the shore and be awed by it. The vastness, the smell, the feel, the beauty. Those things are beyond man B's kin. That doesn't imply that man A is superior to man B. Hell, man B knows about the soaring mountain vistas that are beyond man A's kin. Neither is better than the other.

 

Stop trying to be a victim and take offense. Do I think my culture is superior to yours? Indubitably! Without question, hesitation, or equivocation! Just as, I'm sure, you feel the same way about your culture.

 

It 'feels' like I'm always right and the person I'm refuting is always wrong because, in this context... it is true. Holding a different opinion doesn't make either of us right or wrong... however, when facts are twisted or outright made up to fit those opinions, that is wrong. See previous 5 pages as example.

 

1 minute ago, Hystery said:

Again, read what you type. So what, I should educate myself, but not you? Would you happen to somehow know everything about everything, a living encyclopedia? Please. You don't even know what socialism is, and you come and tell me, or well, not even tell me, the way it's written, you almost order me (hopefully not with a gun on my head, hah!) to educate myself. Do you realize that smug sentiment that radiates from you when you reply not only to me, but also others? That feeling of haugntyness, superiority? It's toxic. Have you ever considered to talk to the person in front of you like an equal? That would surely make this discussion a lot less toxic. I'll wait and see if this happens.

 

Yes, I told you to educate yourself. The reason being: your arguments are vapid and without merit or truth. 95% of what you have said in this thread has been flat out debunked because you were factually wrong. Note the difference. I'm not saying that holding a different opinion makes you wrong... you are welcome to disagree with me all day long. I'm saying what you have claimed as truth was, in fact, wrong. Either you need to educate yourself, or you are intentionally lying in an attempt to prove your ideologies.

 

So... was I wrong in making the assumption that you were just wrong? Should I have assumed the constant non-truths that you spewed over and over again were lies? I'm sorry... I thought I was giving you the benefit of the doubt in believing you to be ignorant rather than a liar. Was I wrong to do so?

 

Even here, I'm forced to 'prove your statements wrong' rather than you doing the same. Why is the onus on me? I'm an American, you aren't. I understand the 2nd amendment. You do not. I understand the form of government we have here. You do not. I have studied the facts and statistics regarding gun ownership. You, obviously, have not.

 

I would love to say that I'm sorry that I come across as smug and haughty, but that wouldn't entirely be the truth. I might come across that way because not a single thing I have said has been shown to be wrong and yet virtually every disagreeing statement against my views has been. I'm sorry that you feel it is toxic, but it is frustrating to hear people who hold a different ideology state half truths and non-truths to tear down something they don't even understand. It is so very frustrating.

 

Perhaps if you stuck to facts rather than failed ideology, perhaps if you stopped making your snide little quips, perhaps if you weren't intentionally framing questions based on personal bias and not facts... well, perhaps we could debate without the animosity.

 

I usually treat people as equals, but when their lack of understanding of a subject demonstrates that, at least on those subjects, we aren't equal... I won't tip toe and shy away from stating the facts. If that makes you feel unequal... educate yourself. As I advocated you do.

 

Look... if you learn nothing from this, please at least take away this:

The stats of gun violence, murder rates, rape, and even violent crime in the U.S. is grossly altered by a few very select areas. Those areas, predominately black communities, skew the statistics for the rest of the country beyond belief. It is a culture of violence and it cannot be addressed without the term racist coming up within seconds. This is why the legal gun  owners feel so much fervor on this topic... in the vast majority of the country, there is so little crime. It isn't racism to point it out. It has nothing to do with race and everything to do with culture. Read up on it... that is all I ask. Understand that the boundaries of political correctness prevent any real discourse from taking place.

 

If we could clean up those areas, I think the world would be amazed at the reality of our crime rates... including gun homicides and the like.

1 hour ago, Narcissus said:

 

I love the comparison of the states vs federal government, and the false equivalency to the EU. You were a sovereign nation beholden to your government only. Now you are beholden to your government who is now beholden to the EU... yet that is somehow comparable to our system of government?!? Do you even remember when the great idea that was the EU started? It was supposed to be financial in nature... yet look at it now.

 

In your wrath of always trying to belittle people who disagree with you, you completely missed the point, which was: do you bring guns to politics? The answer is no. Guns and EU are completely unrelated matters that you somehow tried to put together in a vain hope to prove your point. Moving on.

 

1 hour ago, Narcissus said:

I. can't. do. this.

 

Hyperbole much? So, because your houses weren't robbed by the state, neither you nor anyone else had wealth in one form or another taken from you and given to another? Correlation. Causation. Socratic Method. One is not necessarily indicative of the other. Redistribution, of any kind, is theft. You are stealing it at the point of a gun and giving it to others. That is theft. It is evil, wrong, and immoral. Forced altruism isn't altruism. Just an FYI. 

 

So taxes is theft? Because taxes are used to make your country run. To pay your police, army, firefighters, hospitals. Technically, taxes take money out of your pocket, to put it in the pocket of someone else. So, according to your logic, it's theft. The thing is, it isn't. Just like the socialism ideology isn't. Again, I'll just repeat what you told me before and you seem to really like to repeat as well: 1/ Educate yourself on the topic and 2/ learn Google.com

 

1 hour ago, Narcissus said:

The difference being that I have established myself as a critical thinker. You have not. You HAVE been wrong on every single point I mentioned. You don't directly refute it because you can't. Instead, you try and twist away to demonstrate that I am doing what I accused you of doing. I have not. Taking from group A and giving it to group B is theft. I didn't assume that you were wrong from the beginning, I allowed you to prove it.

 

Ah yes, what a critical thinker you seem to be, trying to belittle other people's arguments by acting superior and putting yourself not as AN interlocutor, but as THE interlocutor, the one who has answers to everything. Sorry, doesn't work that way, and I haven't been wrong on every single point you mentioned. I've adressed all your points everytime my schedule allowed me to, but hey, who am I to try and pop your bubble of desillusions. As for the rest, refer to the previous point about education and google. Maybe that way you'll realize that, somehow, somewhat, you could... wait for it... be wrong about something. I know, it sounds preposterous, right?

 

1 hour ago, Narcissus said:

Sure.

 

 

https://crimeresearch.org/2017/04/number-murders-county-54-us-counties-2014-zero-murders-69-1-murder/

 

The short version: 54% of US counties had ZERO murders, 2% of counties have 51% of the murders. Those 2% hold the strictest  gun laws in the country. This also goes back to what I mentioned earlier about a tiny sub-set of the population (less than 7%) being the cause of ~50% of violent crime.

 

It's nice and all. But it's missing my point. Decrease of gun ownership in one state while the neighbor state has laxist gun laws isn't going to decrease gun ownership, it'll just move the business somewhere else. Decrease of gun ownership on a country scale was the point, over all the 50 states of the US. Give me stats that would show that a decrease of gun ownership on the whole US scale would actually increase the crime rate. That's what I've been asking for. Because so far, almost every other part of the world where gun ownership is reduced or absent has shown a lower crime rate than the US, like in Australia, where the homicide rate dropped to records of low since the appliance of gun laws. Yeah yeah, different culture yabbiyabba. The point still stands. Would US citizens happen to be so savage that even without guns they'd still jump at each other's throats with nails and spoons? I tend to believe US citizens are just like any other human being and would learn to control themselves.

 

1 hour ago, Narcissus said:

I can't prove or disprove the latter part of this because it is filled with the same absurd mental gymnastics you attempted earlier. It is a loaded question... like me asking you if you have stopped beating your wife. You can't answer yes or no because either answer adheres to the fallacy that you are a wife beater. (I'm assuming here that you aren't)

 

The first part is simple to prove as it was already proven by TheDivineHustle earlier in this same thread.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/438327/gun-control-police-officers-overwhelmingly-support-second-amendment-rights

https://www.policeone.com/gun-legislation-law-enforcement/articles/6186552-Police-Gun-Control-Survey-Are-legally-armed-citizens-the-best-solution-to-gun-violence/

 

Aha, mhm, indeed, what an absurd mental gymnastic to assume that a civilian with a gun in the middle of a mass shooting would most likely end harming himself or someone innocent rather than the actual real shooter because of the stress, fear and adrenaline. Absurd indeed, we shouldn't even ask ourselves this question, every person on earth is some kind of robocop that can cope with every situation they can face in life. Obviously. As for the "you have stopped beating your wife", I wouldn't answer yes or no indeed, because I'd simply answer "I didn't beat her to begin with". The magic of having complexity in our language with questions that don't necessarily need a yes or no answer.

 

As for the  National Review article... Seriously? Couldn't you find a more biased newspaper? Conservative to the core, obviously they will defend gun laws. That's not an evidence, that's propaganda. If we go that way, I could pull out this https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/19/gun-control-police-open-carry-law which actually claims even though sheriffs and small police departments don't mind actual gun control laws, police chiefs and larger police departments wouldn't mind more stringent gun control laws. As you can see, police isn't a hive-mind where everyone thinks the same way, so quoting police officers on that isn't a 100% reliable evidence, sorry. Read that article really, a very interesting take on it.

 

1 hour ago, Narcissus said:

This isn't easily refutable because until it happens, it is a negative and a negative cannot be proven. This is merely a weak willed attack at something you don't understand and was explained earlier, by me, to you, in numerous ways, that you refused or were unable to understand.

 

Your opinion, having demonstrated your lack of understanding of U.S. laws, statistics, and form of government, holds as much credibility as it deserves.

 

Yes, yes, I, and many others, are too stupid to comprehend the greatness of your mind, thinking and arguments. Keep ignoring what people say, kudos.

 

1 hour ago, Narcissus said:

First off, your snide little comments are as worthless as your critical thinking skills. Firearms are not toys. There are already background checks... in what way should they be more thorough? No background check, psychological evaluation, etc will ever stop everyone who shouldn't have access to firearms, from getting access. There has to be a balancing act between restricting the right of a free citizen and making sure that everyone is checked. We do that already. While it isn't fool proof, it never will be. It is the same as criminals getting guns in a banned country. Nothing can stop them all.

 

Yes, worthless critical thinking skills. We got it, you're awesome and everyone is beneath you. Now moving on to the background checks. Have you heard? The shooter of the church shouldn't actually have been able to buy a gun. But the Air Force, from which he got fired, didn't correctly transmit the info to the FBI. If the background check had been more thorough and people had been looking for the info in depth, maybe this wouldn't have happened. Tougher checks will already prevent a bunch of people from getting access to things they shouldn't have access to.

 

1 hour ago, Narcissus said:

The very premise of your statement relies on your ignorance of the fact that here, in the U.S., firearm ownership is a RIGHT. It is an inherent right. Neither the government, nor anyone else, has the authority to take away that right. Something you have failed to understand from the beginning of this thread. Can your government limit how much water you have in your refrigerator? Water being, I assume, a right that you have... would you balk at them telling you, not due to anything other than their authority, that you can only have two bottles of water at any one time?

 

Of course you would balk at that! Well, you are from France... but MOST people would balk at a right being limited.

 

Having said all that, you again fail to understand another part of the 2nd amendment which has been explained to you in numerous different ways: our right to bear arms is, in very large part, so that we can fight our government if it becomes too tyrannical. Having that same government tell us that we can only have XYZ (of whatever ilk happens to be catchy today), goes against the very reason the 2nd amendment was written. Obviously, you don't understand this and for your lack of understanding, I'm sorry.

 

And your statement relies on your ignorance that a RIGHT is not a NEED. You can have the right of something, doesn't mean you NEED to apply that right. If a right becomes a need, then it's a duty, and not a right. You've the right to bear a gun. Doesn't mean you NEED a gun. Spot the difference?

 

Can my government limit how much water I have in my refregirator? No, because I'm not going to kill someone with a water bottle. However they can control how much water I use to water my garden plants when there's a drought, so I don't hurt people who'd dramatically need this water for something more important than my garden. Spot the difference?

 

As for your government becoming too tyrannical, it's such a ridiculously dumb myth that has been debunked so many times I'm not even going to linger more on it.

 

1 hour ago, Narcissus said:

Which is all that you have done since the thread started. Every time you were proven wrong, you just came back with something else... ignoring your failed attempts at subverting facts for your failed ideologies.

 

"You say I'm bad so I say you're bad". Grow up. I've been addressing all your points everytime I could, stop being such a childish smug person, it's tiring after a while. By the way, your ideology is the failed one. Hah, take that!

 

1 hour ago, Narcissus said:

Did I say that you were lesser? Inferior? I said that the understanding of something you have never had is beyond your kin. Obviously, it is. Let me make it simple so you understand:

 

If man A meets man B... man A from an ocean village and man B from a mountain village... man B, having never seen the ocean and lacking any understanding of what it is other than man A trying to explain it to him... man B will never fathom what it means to stand on the shore and be awed by it. The vastness, the smell, the feel, the beauty. Those things are beyond man B's kin. That doesn't imply that man A is superior to man B. Hell, man B knows about the soaring mountain vistas that are beyond man A's kin. Neither is better than the other.

 

Stop trying to be a victim and take offense. Do I think my culture is superior to yours? Indubitably! Without question, hesitation, or equivocation! Just as, I'm sure, you feel the same way about your culture.

 

It 'feels' like I'm always right and the person I'm refuting is always wrong because, in this context... it is true. Holding a different opinion doesn't make either of us right or wrong... however, when facts are twisted or outright made up to fit those opinions, that is wrong. See previous 5 pages as example.

 

Did you say that I was lesser or inferior? No. Does it sound like you imply it in every single one of your sentences when you're addressing someone? Yes, it does, 100%. Proof with the fact you consider your culture to be superior to others, which is not something shared by everyone else. I, personally, don't consider my culture to be superior to others. Why? Because I've respect for what's different, and enough humility to not consider myself or my culture to be superior to others. Respect and humility, two concepts you seem to be completely stranger with.

 

 

As for the rest of your post, it is of the same taste: "I'm right, other people are wrong, that's how it is, and everyone trying to tell me I'm wrong is by definition in the wrong". Not even gonna bother addressing all that as it's just derailing the thread entirely, and I'm done dealing with your narcissistic persona. No wonder you actually wanted to pick that nickname when you created your account, I understand the choice fully now, perfectly fitting. I'll be there if you're actually willing to talk things out without considering yourself to be the person in the right all the time no matter what people say, even in PM if needed. I'm always open to discussion, when the discussion is actually enjoyable (meaning not talking to a wall with a superiority syndrom). In the mean time, I'll just lean back and watch unless I read something that irks me. Oooh, I can already see you typing on your keyboard "See, he's leaving, I told you I was right!" Ain't leaving though, I'm open to discussion as I said, I'm just done talking to you for now because you're rather toxic in your speech, and it's clearly not enjoyable.

Edited November 7, 20178 yr by Hystery

9 hours ago, Narcissus said:

It was and is inaccurate, I'm sorry. You selectively chose a scenario that is extreme in it's uniqueness and then made a bunch of false assumptions that are not backed by any data, just your idea of what it might be like... ending with a claim that is the polar opposite of what the facts are. That is the very definition of inaccurate!

 

I don’t have time to read through the recent posts right now, but this right here tells me that you are choosing to ignore certain facts in favor of proving your point. Sam was using that example specifically to say that it cannot be the victims fault that they are dead because they were not carrying weapons. Nothing more than that. He has clarified this multiple times. By saying this is inaccurate, you are agreeing that it is the victims of the Vegas shooting’s fault that they are dead. I frankly have no desire to read anything more that you post. 

@Hystery I'm not ignoring you... I'm rather busy atm. Will reply asap.

 

@willpv23 I agreed with him about victim blaming. Blaming the victim in a mass shooting is beyond absurd. That was why I was avoiding that 'debate' while it was happening. I understood both sides, agreed with the ideas that both sides were trying to put across, but because of the language used... I chose to stay away from it because I saw the direction it was heading. Regardless, that doesn't change why I quoted Sam. What Sam did was intellectually dishonest. He used an extreme example that is the exception of the exception, applied grossly unrealistic behaviors to the actors in that scenario, and then ended with a false statement... and that was his example of why he was right. He was right, in essence, but his scenario and claims were inaccurate.

 

If I used an example of why an orange was red and flat to prove that the Earth is round, does that make my argument accurate? The Earth is round, right? Conflating something correct with something incorrect doesn't change that the incorrect thing is still wrong. Sorry.

 

I'm doing the opposite of 'ignoring certain facts to prove my point'. My point was that while victim blaming the victims of a mass shooting is wrong, his scenario is inaccurate.

It seems as though we've drifted from the original debate subject, which is gun control and it's legality. Now we're discussing whether or not guns are needed in the United States, and we're basing that (subjective) question off of how things are in Europe, which has been proven to be illogical. 

 

I'm still waiting for rebuttals from some people that mysteriously vanished from the topic. 

7 minutes ago, TheDivineHustle said:

It seems as though we've drifted from the original debate subject, which is gun control and it's legality. Now we're discussing whether or not guns are needed in the United States, and we're basing that (subjective) question off of how things are in Europe, which has been proven to be illogical. 

 

I'm still waiting for rebuttals from some people that mysteriously vanished from the topic. 

 

Actually, the original subject was the shooting in Texas. 

1 minute ago, cp702 said:

 

Actually, the original subject was the shooting in Texas. 

Yes I'm aware, hence the reason I said the original debate subject and not just the original subject. Is this an indication to end the debate?

59 minutes ago, Hystery said:

In your wrath of always trying to belittle people who disagree with you, you completely missed the point, which was: do you bring guns to politics? The answer is no. Guns and EU are completely unrelated matters that you somehow tried to put together in a vain hope to prove your point. Moving on.

 

I'm not trying to belittle people who disagree with me. Disagree with me all you want. If I wanted my head in an echo chamber, I would be elsewhere. I understood the point and I disagree with your premise. You can't equate the two to set up an argument and then when I point out the absurdity of the comparison, then cry wolf about 'the point' you were making.

 

Again, we agree to disagree. If the federal government tried to take away my rights, then yes... guns are required. Does everything political require force? I would hope not! However when a government tries to take away your freedom, then absolutely. You can't separate the two so easily. This is a major difference in the culture of Americans vs those found elsewhere. Our short history (in comparison with the rest of the world) is predicated on fighting government tyranny when it encroaches on our inherent rights.

 

I didn't try to put the EU and guns together to prove a point. That is another lie. The conversation was about taking away guns and the loss of freedoms that could ensue. You popped off with a comment about how that would apply to most of Europe. I popped off with a comment about how giving away your sovereignty hardly makes you a glaring example of freedom. On and on until now. There was no vain hope to prove a point... I merely demonstrated how someone from a country who freely gives away their rights is hardly in a situation to opine on what freedom should look like. Stick to facts, please.

 

59 minutes ago, Hystery said:

So taxes is theft? Because taxes are used to make your country run. To pay your police, army, firefighters, hospitals. Technically, taxes take money out of your pocket, to put it in the pocket of someone else. So, according to your logic, it's theft. The thing is, it isn't. Just like the socialism ideology isn't. Again, I'll just repeat what you told me before and you seem to really like to repeat as well: 1/ Educate yourself on the topic and 2/ learn Google.com

 

Where did I say that? There is a huge difference between taxing a populace for government to function and taxing certain groups of the populace to give it to others. One is an intrinsic requirement for a government to exist and the other is theft. Any requirement of the government beyond it's function of existing and providing national defense is a quickly graying area. There are many instances of the U.S. government stealing and redistributing wealth and I find it abhorrent. We, however, have just dipped our toes into the pool that is socialism. There are a series of reasons why Donald Trump got elected as our president and this is one of them. A large portion of us are tired of the slow encroachment towards socialism. It is the antithesis to what made this country the land of freedom and wealth that it is today. We are losing those things daily as we sink towards government models that you might find in, say, France. You might like armed thieves stealing from you and yours, but we don't.

 

59 minutes ago, Hystery said:

Ah yes, what a critical thinker you seem to be, trying to belittle other people's arguments by acting superior and putting yourself not as AN interlocutor, but as THE interlocutor, the one who has answers to everything. Sorry, doesn't work that way, and I haven't been wrong on every single point you mentioned. I've adressed all your points everytime my schedule allowed me to, but hey, who am I to try and pop your bubble of desillusions. As for the rest, refer to the previous point about education and google. Maybe that way you'll realize that, somehow, somewhat, you could... wait for it... be wrong about something. I know, it sounds preposterous, right?

 

Wait. So because I'm intelligent and can answer a few questions and correct a lot of falsehoods, I'm a know-it-all? As far as the tell of the tape on who was right and who was wrong... it is all here for anyone to see. I've been wrong about tons of things... just not here in this thread. You have. So ad hominem away, it doesn't change anything that has been said.

 

59 minutes ago, Hystery said:

It's nice and all. But it's missing my point. Decrease of gun ownership in one state while the neighbor state has laxist gun laws isn't going to decrease gun ownership, it'll just move the business somewhere else. Decrease of gun ownership on a country scale was the point, over all the 50 states of the US. Give me stats that would show that a decrease of gun ownership on the whole US scale would actually increase the crime rate. That's what I've been asking for. Because so far, almost every other part of the world where gun ownership is reduced or absent has shown a lower crime rate than the US, like in Australia, where the homicide rate dropped to records of low since the appliance of gun laws. Yeah yeah, different culture yabbiyabba. The point still stands. Would US citizens happen to be so savage that even without guns they'd still jump at each other's throats with nails and spoons? I tend to believe US citizens are just like any other human being and would learn to control themselves.

 

Okay. So after getting proved wrong, you just move the goal post. Clever as a finger in the door!

 

You can't decrease gun ownership over all 50 states to get your stats. It cannot happen without a complete ratification of the second amendment which would just start another civil war. So you are asking for stats that are impossible to give. If I asked for stats of every newborn baby in France being murdered for the next ten years, and what the growth rate of your country would be for the following ten years... you couldn't answer it. That is what you are asking for: an impossible scenario.

 

Australia is a VERY interesting case study and I'll gladly have that debate with you, but I think that would need its own thread. The mandatory buy-back changed a lot and it isn't what most people see it as.

 

I also love how you take such a precarious perch on your moral high ground calling us savages and hoping we would learn to control ourselves. Amazingly snide! <clap>

 

59 minutes ago, Hystery said:

Aha, mhm, indeed, what an absurd mental gymnastic to assume that a civilian with a gun in the middle of a mass shooting would most likely end harming himself or someone innocent rather than the actual real shooter because of the stress, fear and adrenaline. Absurd indeed, we shouldn't even ask ourselves this question, every person on earth is some kind of robocop that can cope with every situation they can face in life. Obviously. As for the "you have stopped beating your wife", I wouldn't answer yes or no indeed, because I'd simply answer "I didn't beat her to begin with". The magic of having complexity in our language with questions that don't necessarily need a yes or no answer.

 

Yes, it is... when every data point we have available says the exact opposite. You can armchair postulate all you want, but there are hundreds of thousands of cases EACH YEAR where armed citizens use their firearms to save lives, stop crime, defend themselves, and stop mass shootings, yet there is a complete absence of data to backup your desire for gun owners to be the savages you so desire us to be.

 

The "I didn't beat her to begin with" was the exact answer I gave to your loaded, biased, and inane questions and statements. That was my point. If you preload a question filled with your statistically inaccurate fluff, you can't demand an answer. The answer is simply: you preloaded it with your biased drivel.

 

59 minutes ago, Hystery said:

As for the  National Review article... Seriously? Couldn't you find a more biased newspaper? Conservative to the core, obviously they will defend gun laws. That's not an evidence, that's propaganda. If we go that way, I could pull out this https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/19/gun-control-police-open-carry-law which actually claims even though sheriffs and small police departments don't mind actual gun control laws, police chiefs and larger police departments wouldn't mind more stringent gun control laws. As you can see, police isn't a hive-mind where everyone thinks the same way, so quoting police officers on that isn't a 100% reliable evidence, sorry. Read that article really, a very interesting take on it.

 

Wait... so because I used a right leaning site, you pull out theguardian?!? Hell, why not throw in snopes, vox, and huffpo as well. Really?

 

There is a difference between using a site that leans in a direction (as all do), and using a propaganda machine that contradicts itself over and over again.

 

No one ever said that all policemen everywhere in this country are a monolith and behave and believe in the same way!!!!one111!!1 Quote me saying that. You can't? Interesting how you keep telling me all the things that I said and yet you can quote none of them. That dang interwebs and it's finicky magics!

 

That doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of police fully support the 2nd amendment, conceal carriers, etc. That has been proven several times now. Finding anecdotal evidence doesn't change the fact that the majority agree with us, not you and your beliefs. Even your anecdotal evidence had the guy saying he believes in the right to bear arms! Rofl!

 

59 minutes ago, Hystery said:

Yes, yes, I, and many others, are too stupid to comprehend the greatness of your mind, thinking and arguments. Keep ignoring what people say, kudos.

 

Ad hominem. More of the same.

 

59 minutes ago, Hystery said:

Yes, worthless critical thinking skills. We got it, you're awesome and everyone is beneath you. Now moving on to the background checks. Have you heard? The shooter of the church shouldn't actually have been able to buy a gun. But the Air Force, from which he got fired, didn't correctly transmit the info to the FBI. If the background check had been more thorough and people had been looking for the info in depth, maybe this wouldn't have happened. Tougher checks will already prevent a bunch of people from getting access to things they shouldn't have access to.

 

You are right! Everyone... a moment of silence! Well, sort of. Your facts are right, but your conclusion is wrong. The problem is, he was the exception, not the rule. No system is perfect and finding the balance between allowing free citizens the ability to express those rights and preventing these types of tragedies from happening is a slippery slope. While I wish that it hadn't happened, I still don't believe that restricting our rights more than they already are is a worthy trade-off. Again, this was the exception.

 

59 minutes ago, Hystery said:

And your statement relies on your ignorance that a RIGHT is not a NEED. You can have the right of something, doesn't mean you NEED to apply that right. If a right becomes a need, then it's a duty, and not a right. You've the right to bear a gun. Doesn't mean you NEED a gun. Spot the difference?

 

Still, you don't understand what a right is. A right means that nothing should prohibit my usage of whatever that right is. No one said that a right was a need. No one said that everyone should carry a gun since it is their right to do so. YET AGAIN, where did I say that. Quote it? You can't? Interesting...

 

59 minutes ago, Hystery said:

Can my government limit how much water I have in my refregirator? No, because I'm not going to kill someone with a water bottle. However they can control how much water I use to water my garden plants when there's a drought, so I don't hurt people who'd dramatically need this water for something more important than my garden. Spot the difference?

 

What does it matter what you do with your water if it is your right to have it. This is the perfect example where you misunderstand what a right is.Your right is to have it... not you can have it as long as you do what we say, when we say, how we say it. That isn't a right, that is a prequalified permission. Permission given by your government and nothing at all like what an inherent right is.

 

I also made it clear that I was asking if you would balk at them telling you, not due to anything other than their authority ... a completely different question than the intentionally twisted version you gave back. Again... please stop telling me what I said when I never said the things you imply. It is obvious you have to subvert my words. Why? You claim I say things I never did. You pretend I asked a different question than the mock one you describe. Why? Are my words and questions too hard to answer and reply back to without your tinkering with them? Interesting...

 

59 minutes ago, Hystery said:

As for your government becoming too tyrannical, it's such a ridiculously dumb myth that has been debunked so many times I'm not even going to linger more on it.

 

Famous last words. You can find it dumb all you want, it doesn't change the reason why the 2nd amendment was written as a protection from the government.

 

59 minutes ago, Hystery said:

"You say I'm bad so I say you're bad". Grow up. I've been addressing all your points everytime I could, stop being such a childish smug person, it's tiring after a while. By the way, your ideology is the failed one. Hah, take that!

 

Wait. Again. So you make a childish and flippant remark based on zero understanding of what you are talking about and when I comment back the same to you, in reply... I need to grow up? Makes sense. I should just sit back and let you continue making biased, unfounded claims, derisive comments towards something you obviously don't understand and not give you facts, stats, and a general dose of reality? Not gonna happen today, friend. 

 

59 minutes ago, Hystery said:

Did you say that I was lesser or inferior? No. Does it sound like you imply it in every single one of your sentences when you're addressing someone? Yes, it does, 100%. Proof with the fact you consider your culture to be superior to others, which is not something shared by everyone else. I, personally, don't consider my culture to be superior to others. Why? Because I've respect for what's different, and enough humility to not consider myself or my culture to be superior to others. Respect and humility, two concepts you seem to be completely stranger with.

 

You don't consider your culture superior to others, huh? Great! Care to explain to me why you are here attacking one of the core philosophies of my culture again? Do you do the same to certain refugees that are pouring into your country? Is their culture equal to yours as well? Get off the moral high ground. You have no right to be there.

 

Lecture me more about humility and respect while you are continuously shown as either ignorant of everything that we have been speaking about, or an intentional liar. I don't want to make the mistake of assuming which one again.

 

59 minutes ago, Hystery said:

As for the rest of your post, it is of the same taste: "I'm right, other people are wrong, that's how it is, and everyone trying to tell me I'm wrong is by definition in the wrong". Not even gonna bother addressing all that as it's just derailing the thread entirely, and I'm done dealing with your narcissistic persona. No wonder you actually wanted to pick that nickname when you created your account, I understand the choice fully now, perfectly fitting. I'll be there if you're actually willing to talk things out without considering yourself to be the person in the right all the time no matter what people say, even in PM if needed. I'm always open to discussion, when the discussion is actually enjoyable (meaning not talking to a wall with a superiority syndrom). In the mean time, I'll just lean back and watch unless I read something that irks me. Oooh, I can already see you typing on your keyboard "See, he's leaving, I told you I was right!" Ain't leaving though, I'm open to discussion as I said, I'm just done talking to you for now because you're rather toxic in your speech, and it's clearly not enjoyable.

 

Ad hominem ad infinitum.

 

You are more than welcome to stay and more than welcome to join in. I simply ask that you make a better showing next time around.

 

1 hour ago, TheDivineHustle said:

I'm still waiting for rebuttals from some people that mysteriously vanished from the topic. 

 

I wish you luck in getting them. I would love to hear some as well.

I'll make a better showing when you will, pal.