Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The one thing I can not understand is "I don't support any gun control" mentality. I sincerely state I mean zero disrespect  to anyone, but I can't comprehend this way of thinking.

 

For example, I enjoy guns (just as cars, trains, planes and other complicated and effective machinery) and wouldn't mind to get one, but I also wouldn't mind an extensive background check, as well as medical. I could very well get denied, too, I'm not the coolest and calmest person in the world. But it's a reasonable limitation of my rights, because at this point my right to have a gun and the rights of multiple others to live safely are at a balance. Same as driving. I have to qualify to get a license because an uneducated driver, or, even worse, an unfit driver is life-threatening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Hystery said:

Just. Like. Every. Other. Single. Regulation. Ever.

 

Do you say "Oh no, this criminal could be charged for a crime with laws that might have had political beliefs pressure behind them, how can we ensure that the people who made the law weren't putting their political beliefs before anything when they made the law and that the judges won't push their own agenda when sentencing, and how will this not be corrupt?" I doubt so. You'd say more "This criminal could be charged, that's good, laws are good." Same here. You really need to stop being so paranoid as soon as someone talk about making a law or regulation.

  I am not being paranoid, you are suggesting putting a new law forth that would subjugate everyone even though they did absolutely nothing wrong.  Punish the many for the actions of the few.

  People that commit crimes are only punished if they are caught, or reported and captured and convicted.  Innocent until proven guilty.  What will a law against bullying do?  If the bully hits you, then he can get in trouble?  That is called assault and it is already illegal.  If he makes fun of you and hurts your feelings, should he be punished for that?  Do you want to also start restricting other's free speech because you do not like or cannot handle what someone else says?  Freedom of speech stops when you make a call to action as in, encouraging people to beat up someone because YOU said that they raped someone.

  You want to subjugate everyone and make it harder for people to get guns even though it will do absolutely nothing to keep a bad person from doing bad act's.  I can go 1 block north of my house and buy a gun from one of the burglars, I can go 1 block south and buy a gun from one of the gang bangers.  The point is that no matter what you do to try and restrict access to firearms from LAW ABIDING CITIZEN'S, you will do absolutely nothing from keeping bad people from doing bad thing's to others.

9 hours ago, Hystery said:

You're contradicting yourself there. I'm saying that we should make reactions and punishments to bullying tougher so people can actually DO something against bullies, you tell me "yes but no because right now no one does anything against bullies". That's exactly what I'm saying. Giving people the ability to have tougher reactions and punishments on bullies will be a deterrent to bullying. That's how laws work in general. Why drug dealing isn't everyone's favorite job? Because the prison sentence behind it is a good deterrent to prevent people from doing so. It'd be the same here.

  I am not contradicting myself in any way, I am telling you the cold hard truth, that, no matter what law you make, no matter what the punishment is, no matter wgo you tell, your issue with bullies will not stop.  People sell drug's because they want to, because it is a quick way to make money and they have the connections to the people that can supply them.  We have repete offenders for a reason, because they like what they do.  And NO not everyone would be a drug dealer if it was legal because people have interests in job's and they would prefer to do what they love to do than sell drug's.  I know drug dealer's, I know lawyer's, I know cop's, and I know business owner's.  If the law's worked, then NO ONE WOULD BE BREAKING THEM.

  If you go to the store and someone walks in and beats or kills you with a bat, what did restricting guns do to prevent that violent crime from happening?

9 hours ago, Hystery said:

Okay. So this one is a bit of "common sense" as I've seen thrown around a lot in the later posts. Guns aren't like plants. They can't be grown out of the ground. You can't make a gun. It can't be manufactured by a single person. Therefore, where do you think the black market is getting its supplies? From the legal market. More guns on the legal market means more opportunities for a gun to be stolen and sold on the black market. Les guns on the legal market means less opportunities for a gun to be stolen and sold on the black market. Meaning it'd prove more difficult to find one on the black market, and with much higher prices because it'd be a more rare products (rare products are always more expensive). So, it's nice and all to say they can acquire illegal firearms, but you've to also think about "Where do those illegally acquired firearms come from?".

  The guns are still there, taking them away or restricting them from me does nothing to stop a criminal from using them, not to mention that guns are not used that often in crimes.  You cannot seperate gun crime from violent crime because it is the same thing.  It is a tool that is used just like a bat, knife, car, hammer, or explosive device.  

 

10 hours ago, Hystery said:

Bullies bully people because people allow them to and people won't fight back, and the people you tell to help will do nothing. Changing that will prevent bullying, and you can do it by allowing teachers and students to report bullying situations to a police officer for example so the bully get charged with it.

  You finally get it?  They bully people because people let them and people don't stand up or fight back.

  And the people you tell to help wont do anything, just like you and I said.  What will you do if they hurt your feelings? Restrict everyone's right to free speech because you can't handle word's?  

STICKS AND STONES MAY BREAK MY BONES, BUT WORD'S WILL NEVER HURT ME.  Start reciting that.

10 hours ago, Hystery said:

I don't see how YOUR access to self defense would be restricted whatsoever. You're sane? You don't show paranoid signs (a bit doubtful on this one due to your incredible tendency to think everyone wants to push their agenda and can't judge anything without being corrupted)? You don't show signs of a dire need for a carnage? Then you get your gun. Your access would not be affected, whatsoever. You'd just pass a little test that barely last an hour or so to have an authorization to own and carry a gun. The access to people who actually are not fit to have a gun, on the other hand, would be affected and rightfully so. Someone who has suicidal ideas or urges of murder shouldn't be handed a gun with a pat on the back. Again, no one bats an eye when someone is judged unfit to be a police officer or enroled in the army after a psychological test. I don't see why in this case everyone would go batshit crazy about.

  I should not have to explain, or undergo anything that pertains to me owning what I want.  If you want that then let us have the same program's for owning a computer since people hack into and steal other people's info or lure kid's into performing sexual actions.  Let us do the same thing with cars, if you drink then you are barred from owning a car since you could possibly get drunk, drive, and kill a family in a mini-van.

 

  We make people that join the military and police force undergo psychiatric evaluations because they are being entrusted with a civil duty that we, the citizen's, are entrusting them to perform on behalf of us.  Me owning a gun has nothing to do with a civil duty.

 

  I am not paranoid or batshit crazy, you have gotten the gun control act of 1934, the gun control act of 1968, and the 1986 firearm owner's protection act that banned fully automatic machine guns and you even have banned 7.62x39 armour piercing rounds not even 5 years ago.  We give, you take and it still is not enough because what you take is never enough.  All that you will alway's want is everything with the hope that one day, in a utopian world, you can feel safe.

1 hour ago, Hastings said:

The one thing I can not understand is "I don't support any gun control" mentality. I sincerely state I mean zero disrespect  to anyone, but I can't comprehend this way of thinking.

 

For example, I enjoy guns (just as cars, trains, planes and other complicated and effective machinery) and wouldn't mind to get one, but I also wouldn't mind an extensive background check, as well as medical. I could very well get denied, too, I'm not the coolest and calmest person in the world. But it's a reasonable limitation of my rights, because at this point my right to have a gun and the rights of multiple others to live safely are at a balance. Same as driving. I have to qualify to get a license because an uneducated driver, or, even worse, an unfit driver is life-threatening.

  Should wr reasonably restrict your right to vote?  

  Should we reasonably restrict your right to free speech?

  Should we reasonably restrict your right to a fair trial?

  Should we reasonably restrict your right to practice what ever religion you practice?

  Should we reasonably restrict your right to unwarranted search and seizures?

  My point is that you will chip away at everything until there is nothing left.

  Be careful the grounds you tread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But NO ONE is stopping you from getting what you want. God damn it's crazy you get so stuck up on that. NO ONE. IS. STOPPING YOU. FROM GETTING. WHAT YOU WANT. Any citizen could get a gun if they wanted. Anyone. Only the ones that would be found to have mental issues of some sort would be prevented from getting one, until they're cured. How is that preventing you from owning a gun in any way for god's sake. It doesn't, you still can own all the AR15 of the world. You're staying so stuck up on that even though it's not the point is beyond me. And what is even beyond me is that you're so attached to "muh freedomz" that you're favorable to people with murder urges to have access to a gun legally. At this point you've blood on your hands just as much as the politicians who do jackshit about all this.

 

On another note, no one talked about restricting someone's free speech, you're making movies in your head now. Calm down, drink a tea, and realize that no one here talked about removing your freedoms. Your freedoms are safe. Promise.

 

Also, if your definition of bullying is only with words, you clearly have fallen on the kindest bullies ever, because bullying can involve a fair lot of physical humiliations as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want to make enemies here, I just do not get why people want me to comply with their life when I do not ask them to comply with my way of life.  Restricting me for actions that I have not done lables me as guilty before innocent. 

19 minutes ago, Hystery said:

But NO ONE is stopping you from getting what you want. God damn it's crazy you get so stuck up on that. NO ONE. IS. STOPPING YOU. FROM GETTING. WHAT YOU WANT. Any citizen could get a gun if they wanted. Anyone. Only the ones that would be found to have mental issues of some sort would be prevented from getting one, until they're cured. How is that preventing you from owning a gun in any way for god's sake. It doesn't, you still can own all the AR15 of the world. You're staying so stuck up on that even though it's not the point is beyond me. And what is even beyond me is that you're so attached to "muh freedomz" that you're favorable to people with murder urges to have access to a gun legally. At this point you've blood on your hands just as much as the politicians who do jackshit about all this.

 

On another note, no one talked about restricting someone's free speech, you're making movies in your head now. Calm down, drink a tea, and realize that no one here talked about removing your freedoms. Your freedoms are safe. Promise.

 

Also, if your definition of bullying is only with words, you clearly have fallen on the kindest bullies ever, because bullying can involve a fair lot of physical humiliations as well.

  If I must go and prove that I am able own something prior to purchasing something, then I am restricted from it.  Do you not understand that?

 

  And if you would slow down and read whay I am saying, when I mentioned free speech, is that if someone offends you with word's and you want that to stop, by using laws, then you must restrict people's right to free speech.

 

  And you obviously do not wish to remember or you want to pick and choose what I say, disregarding everything that I say,  in order to create some sort of lost point.

 

  I have stated prior multiple time's that I do know that bullying is not only mental but also physical.

 

  If someone assaults you, then that is illegal and creating a law that says the same thing will do nothing to change that, it is up to YOU to press charges upon that individual, or individuals that do physical harm to you.  

  If someone is hurting your feelings and you do not like the word's that they say to you, then you must restrict people's freedom of speech in order to stop it and charge people for saying something that you do not like.

 

  I understand what bullying is, I was bullied at one point and so were other's.  It stopped when I stood up to them and took away the control and power that they had.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, SpikeTerm said:

Do you care about facts? Vermont and New Hampshire are the safest states in the US with the strongest gun culture, Chicago has gun homicide rates way higher than those states.

 

Is it fair to compare two predominantly rural states to a major, urban, global city though?  Two states whose population combined still falls something like 500,000 people short of the city's population.  I'm pretty sure that most gun homicides in Chicago are related to inner-city gang violence on a massive scale, something which isn't nearly as prevalent in VT or NH.  I really don't believe that if you loosened firearms laws in Chicago that this would somehow result in a drop in the city's murder rate. 

 

And similarly, I actually don't believe that banning guns in VT or NH would decrease the murder rate there either.  As people here rightly point out, if someone is going to commit murder, they are perfectly capable of doing so without a gun.

 

18 hours ago, SpikeTerm said:

I'm so sick of people saying things like this without offering any solutions. The UK's homicide rate increased after their gun control, and your silly little mayor is suggesting knife control.

 

I think this is a claim which is very popular with the pro-gun lobby, and is one that I've seen before.  In a sense, the numbers do appear to support such a conclusion (when you compare the murder rate in the 1990s (handgun ban was in 1997) to that of the 2000s, but in reality there's a few problems with this:

  • They include a huge spike in 2003 which is due to the way that murder is recorded in England & Wales (172 victims of serial killer Harold Shipman, while these murders actually happened over a time-span of 25 years)
  • Until 2001 (so, four years after the handgun ban), there's actually no trend-defying increase in the number of murders.  If gun control was to blame, why did it take 4 years for the numbers to actually spike upwards?  For the record, only 0.1% of the total population even had any handguns to surrender.
  • "Gun Control" in the UK has actually been around a lot longer, generally agreed to be since the Pistols Act of 1903.  There have been both increases and decreases in the murder rate since then.

Importantly though, it's debatable what effect the handgun ban even had in the UK.  The ban was in 1997 and in each of 1998, 1999, 2000, there is absolutely no spike in the UK's murder rate which instead follows the already existing upwards trend.  Add on to this that gun ownership in the UK is so low anyway, even before the handgun ban, that only 0.1% of the population actually surrendered any firearms as a result of it.

 

But, back to the statistics...  While it is true that murders did spike upwards approximately five years after the handgun ban, this isn't the only time that the UK's murder rate has suddenly increased.  There was an even larger increase in the UK's murder rate between 1977-1979, well before the handgun ban of '97, and with no other recently introduced gun control legislation to blame for it.

 

Regardless, if you're convinced that there's a correlation between gun control and an increase in the murder rate, then you could also take a look at Australia.  The murder rate in Australia actually dropped after the gun ban of 1996.

 

Going back to your claim about gun control in the UK, though, there's one simple thing that you need to realise:

 

Gun control as we know it in the UK was introduced as a response to the first, and only, mass school shooting in the UK.  The British people and their elected representatives came together, and unanimously decided that it was simply unacceptable for 16 children to be slaughtered in a school shooting.  The legislation was proposed by a Conservative government in 1996 after the massacre and was formally introduced after the 1997 General Election by their successors, with overwhelming support across the political spectrum in this country, with one simple goal: to reduce the likelihood that something as awful as the Dunblane massacre would ever happen again.

 

Alas, there has not been a mass school shooting in the UK since.


"You tell me exactly what you want, and I will very carefully explain to you why it cannot be."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sam said:

And similarly, I actually don't believe that banning guns in VT or NH would decrease the murder rate there either.  As people here rightly point out, if someone is going to commit murder, they are perfectly capable of doing so without a gun.

  Agreed.

 

2 hours ago, Sam said:

Gun control as we know it in the UK was introduced as a response to the first, and only, mass school shooting in the UK.  The British people and their elected representatives came together, and unanimously decided that it was simply unacceptable for 16 children to be slaughtered in a school shooting.  The legislation was proposed by a Conservative government in 1996 after the massacre and was formally introduced after the 1997 General Election by their successors, with overwhelming support across the political spectrum in this country, with one simple goal: to reduce the likelihood that something as awful as the Dunblane massacre would ever happen again.

 

Alas, there has not been a mass school shooting in the UK since.

  To be fair, that was the only real mass shooting at a school in the UK.  I do agree that a country with fewer guns does have fewer gun crimes, that is un-arguable.  But that does not mean that it curved violent crime in general.  Our current issue, at school's, is that one side is saying "why are the school's not guarded" and the other side saying "why do you need guns".

 

  The U.S. is an extremely different country than any other country in the world.  There are soo many guns here, held by both law abiding citizens and criminals, and to punish and restrict law abiding people due to the actions of criminals does absolutely nothing to curb crime (not just gun crime).

 

  I get it, people want to feel safe, they want children to go to school's without worry of being in a school massacre.  But the actions being proposed will not stop bad people from doing bad thing's because no law can stop bad people from doing bad things.  That is where the issue is, people do bad thing's.

 

  I am not arguing with you, Sam, I do agree with what you have stated and they cannot be argued for they are facts and you pointed out how things are and were in the UK. 

 

     I agree, that it is unacceptable for children to be slaughtered in a school, but if you know that people will do something like this and no one does anything to secure the school's, like other public facilities, then they will alway's be targeted.

 

  It is not the gun that is the issue but the way to deal with evil people is where the issue stands, and will always stand.

 

  To subjugate another individual, to live the way that you see fit, is on the same path as slavery.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ban Doors, Ban Schools. 

 

Problem solved right?, because these gun free zones are working out so well.

 

Sad and needless loss of life, and the only one to blame is a loser piece of sh#* psychopath who like all mass shooter should be publicly executed as to save our tax dollars and be most effective and stopping the next incident.  


derp.png

                                                                                                                                         4-DAVID-20 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just want to pop in and say that comparing one country to another on the basis of gun control is illogical. I’ll sit back and await responses from a few people that have left me hanging, as usual. 

Edited by TheDivineHustle

It takes a particularly intelligent person to hold a civilized political discussion with someone on the opposite side. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, ToeBius said:

To subjugate another individual, to live the way that you see fit, is on the same path as slavery.

 

Honestly now you're starting to sound like the Australian news when they called us "underground hackers" for modding GTA. Restricting guns is nowhere near slavery and it's just ridiculous to claim that.

 

17 hours ago, ToeBius said:

If I must go and prove that I am able own something prior to purchasing something, then I am restricted from it.  Do you not understand that?

 

You seriously have an issue with needing to prove that you are mentally able to own something that can take a life away in mere milliseconds?


"Work and ideas get stolen, then you keep moving on doing your thing."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/20/2018 at 1:36 PM, ToeBius said:

 

How about reading everything that I said before twisting it?  I said that there is on way in and  out "UNLESS" there is an emergency and only then the other doors will open.  And even if the shooter did come to the school then he/she would have to go to the front door and be greeted by cop's, who have gun's and training to deal with this.  You are disregarding the fact that there is a armed guard at  the school, guarding the only way in and out unless there is an emergency.  This would not be a meat grinder, this would be the way you gain access to a facility that is owned by the government.

 

 

 

 

I didn't twist anything.  In fact I quoted everything I replied to.  You seem to be under the assumption that if it was voted to have an armed guard at the door at all times, that guard would be there all day, five days a week, facing the door like a robot.  You really are forgetting human nature and that this is a living person.  Can you honestly tell me you'd willingly volunteer to be an armed guard that just stared at the front doors all day long and did nothing else what so ever?

 

Quote

 


1) Guarding the front door is what a door guard does.  You can have 2 officer's at the school if you think that it would help this way one officer can walk the school grounds and the other can be at the door, this way one officer isn't stuck being bored at the door as you say.  This would not limit the officer's job as it is his job.

 

 2) I would have no issue guarding a school as it would kind of be part of my job, if I do not like my job then I can transfer or even find a new career.  Usually when a officer is put at a school, they are not the rookie that just got out of the academy and are actually someone with time under the individuals belt.

 

 

 

1) Yes, they guard the door, and this would be acceptable in, say, a prison.  In a school?  A staff member acting as a greeter is the best solution.  We do not need to waste an officer's time making him a door guard.  If anything, bring on an actual security guard.  Police officer's job is not to stand watch all day long in a single spot, especially not at a school.

 

2) There is a huge difference between guarding the school and standing there like a statue.  The SRO I had did his job with flying colors.  He'd walk around and do some foot patrol a lot.  Especially during lunch.  Never once was he the door guard, and guess what?  We never had an issue!  I get that times have changed, but it is still unnecessary to have a police officer as a door man.

 

Quote

There you go, that is inadequate security measures that would do nothing to protect you.  Put a officer at the doors with metal detectors and check everyone that comes in, instead of allowing anyone that wants to come in to do so freely.

 

Inadequate?  So because the staff member who was stationed at the door wasn't armed, our security was inadequate and we were at risk?  How does this make any sense what so ever?  Metal detectors doesn't solve the problem.  They might force a shooter to act way earlier than intended, but it doesn't magically take their guns away and leave them unarmed.  Nor does having a cop there stop it either.  Guy walks in and immediately shoots the cop.  Then what?  What did an armed door guard do?

 

Quote

I did not say that "the answer to bullying  is to have armed police everywhere".  I did in fact say to "stand up to bullies".  When I say stand up to them, that usually means that if someone is picking on you then you should stand up for yourself (like I did) or if you see someone getting bullied then you should stand up for them (like I did).  I was bullied to untill my mom's boyfriend told me to punch them, and that is what I did.  I layed the prick out and he never messed with me or anyone again.  Same goes with standing up to bullies for other's, I stood up for someone else and the bullying stopped.  

 

and guess what happened? You got in trouble for fighting.   As bad as bullies are, unless they hit you first, fighting them doesn't solve shit.  If you throw the first punch over words, you deserve to be expelled and charged.  Violence solves nothing.  Just because hitting someone yields a desirable result doesn't mean you should do it.

 

Quote

When I say to protect your schools as you would your courthouses, I mean (and I know you know what I mean but you want to argue and make my statement sound isaine) that if you are willing to put 10 officers/deputies at a courthouse, then why is it soo taboo to put a officer or 2 at a school?  We know that people shoot up schools and yet proper security measures are to wild and out for others?  I went to the White house and it was heavily guarded, I went to military bases and they were heavily guarded, I have been to courthouses and they are heavily guarded, police stations are heavily guarded, even the library's in the ghetto have guards.  But you and everyone else find it insane to guard our schools?  The place where young minds are? WTF?

 

If you are going to compare and use a courthouse as an example, be prepared to have it thrown back at you.  You mention the White House, a police station, library's in the ghetto.  Do you not understand that you are comparing?  Why do you think the White House has a shit ton of armed guards?  You act like we aren't doing anything and schools are defenseless.  Again, schools have an SRO.  You seem to think one officer is a poor number and can't do anything.  Do you really believe the answer is having 10+ police officers at the school?  It's a school, not a prison, not the White House, not a military installation.  A school.

 

Quote

  I NEVER said anything about telling the victim to grow up.  I only said to stand up to the bully, and if you see someone that can't stand up to them, then you should stand up for them.  Stop standing idle and letting evil prevail.  What is truly wrong is when good people do nothing and I have a major issue with that. 

 

Since some people are scared, don't like confrontations, or whatever it may be, you essentially are telling them to suck it up and defend themselves.  Here you go again with "letting evil prevail".  This is real life, and these are CHILDREN.  Understand that someone who bullies as a teenager might become the nicest adult who regrets all they did, so lets stop labeling people as 'evil'.  Furthermore, as nice as it is for people to step in and help, it is not mandatory.  No one has to help, no one has to do anything.  You can have all the issues with it you want, but you don't have a right to talk crap to them or act like they are lesser human beings because they didn't act.

 

Quote

  Yes it would fail just like every other law on the books. 

 

Here's the thing, you have zero proof or evidence to back this up.  Every law on the book has failed?  Huh, didn't know we have rapes, murders, riots, looting, etc going on every second without any sort of repercussions!  Why, maybe I'll go steal someone's car since the law fails and I'll get away with it.

 

Quote

I know this for a fact that the only way for evil to prevail, is for good men to do nothing. 

 

There is no evil.  There are bad people who do bad things, and good people who do good things, but this whole 'good' and 'evil' thing is purely fantasy.   Yes, there are some people who do truly heinous things, but that does not make them an evil person. We all do the things we do for a reason, and sometimes, that reason is out of our control.

 

Quote

but instead of waiting idly for someone to make a law, we can begin by putting security into schools just like every other government facility that you go to.

 

It is a school, not a facility with classified information or some black ops site.  School's have security, maybe some don't have adequate enough, and in those cases, changes can be made.  However, your proposal is that we turn schools into Area 51. 

 

Quote

To subjugate another individual, to live the way that you see fit, is on the same path as slavery. 

 

Are you seriously comparing restricting guns to slavery?  Am I really reading this?  There is HUGE, HUGE, HUGE difference between taking away someone's right to own a gun and taking away their humanity.

 

Quote

If I must go and prove that I am able own something prior to purchasing something, then I am restricted from it.  Do you not understand that?

 

You do realize why we need people to prove they are capable of owning a firearm, right?  Not everyone has the mental capacity for it.  A perfect example is my neighbor who is 35, but mentally 7.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, willpv23 said:

 

Honestly now you're starting to sound like the Australian news when they called us "underground hackers" for modding GTA. Restricting guns is nowhere near slavery and it's just ridiculous to claim that.

 

 

You seriously have an issue with needing to prove that you are mentally able to own something that can take a life away in mere milliseconds?

It's not ridiculous to view gun restrictions as a form of slavery when you consider the fact that some of the first gun control laws were used to prohibit blacks and Indians from purchasing firearms.

 

You and the others have taken his words out of context, which shows a lack of understanding his entire argument. It's not a literal comparison to slavery, but rather a conceptual comparison. The 2nd amendment is literally the only barrier between the government violating our rights as Americans. 

See the source image

Edited by TheDivineHustle

It takes a particularly intelligent person to hold a civilized political discussion with someone on the opposite side. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Giordano You are seriously spot on with everything you said, great write up. Now as far as my opinion goes. I seriously cannot grasp this concept that making a law will fail just like every other law in the book. Not only is there zero evidence to back this up, but how about instead of automatically assuming that no law will work, try and come up with a solution, like what Florida did. 

 

 

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/03/05/591036676/florida-senate-approves-gun-control-package-oks-arming-some-school-personnel 


"Micheal, Micheal Micheal, what would you do without me?"

 

- Trevor Phillips. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TheSandwichStealer said:

@Giordano You are seriously spot on with everything you said, great write up. Now as far as my opinion goes. I seriously cannot grasp this concept that making a law will fail just like every other law in the book. Not only is there zero evidence to back this up, but how about instead of automatically assuming that no law will work, try and come up with a solution, like what Florida did. 

 

 

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/03/05/591036676/florida-senate-approves-gun-control-package-oks-arming-some-school-personnel 

 

Well, on the basis of an "assault rifle" ban, it's already been tried and numerous research centers have concluded that it would have little to no significant change on violent crime/mass shootings. So there is plenty of evidence to back it up, actually.


It takes a particularly intelligent person to hold a civilized political discussion with someone on the opposite side. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TheDivineHustle said:

Just want to pop in and say that comparing one country to another on the basis of gun control is illogical. I’ll sit back and await responses from a few people that have left me hanging, as usual. 

 

Yup, I agree.  Just felt the need to clarify the situation in the UK as someone said that gun control here is responsible for an increase in the murder rate.  I can say though that on a personal level, after visiting my younger cousins in the US earlier this year, I found it very troubling that they, as middle school kids, actually have to practice every couple of months for what to do if someone comes to their school with a gun.  I don't think there was anything further from my mind when I was at school, especially at a young age like that.


"You tell me exactly what you want, and I will very carefully explain to you why it cannot be."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sam said:

 

Yup, I agree.  Just felt the need to clarify the situation in the UK as someone said that gun control here is responsible for an increase in the murder rate.  I can say though that on a personal level, after visiting my younger cousins in the US earlier this year, I found it very troubling that they, as middle school kids, actually have to practice every couple of months for what to do if someone comes to their school with a gun.  I don't think there was anything further from my mind when I was at school, especially at a young age like that.

I do too, but I feel the problem stems deeper than just guns, and that's what a lot of people don't understand. Taking away the gun isn't going to forever solve the problems that we have in our school systems. A comparison between the UK and US on this matter doesn't make any sense to me because the circumstances are completely different. There are just too many different variables to make a reasonable comparison.


It takes a particularly intelligent person to hold a civilized political discussion with someone on the opposite side. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, TheDivineHustle said:

It's not ridiculous to view gun restrictions as a form of slavery when you consider the fact that some of the first gun control laws were used to prohibit blacks and Indians from purchasing firearms.

 

You and the others have taken his words out of context, which shows a lack of understanding his entire argument. It's not a literal comparison to slavery, but rather a conceptual comparison. The 2nd amendment is literally the only barrier between the government violating our rights as Americans. 

 

 

Funny that you claim I'm taking someone words out of context, then post a quote that is famously taken out of context.


"Work and ideas get stolen, then you keep moving on doing your thing."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, TheDivineHustle said:

It's not ridiculous to view gun restrictions as a form of slavery when you consider the fact that some of the first gun control laws were used to prohibit blacks and Indians from purchasing firearms.

 

You and the others have taken his words out of context, which shows a lack of understanding his entire argument. It's not a literal comparison to slavery, but rather a conceptual comparison. The 2nd amendment is literally the only barrier between the government violating our rights as Americans.

 

Actually, it is.    Owning a weapon is not a right, but a privilege.  There's a reason not every single person can own one.  Slavery is taking away all of someone's rights and making them the lesser human being.  Nothing was taken out of context, he compared slavery to that of losing a firearm.  You can't make claims of word twisting or out of context just because you don't like someone's response to it. We responded directly to what he said, nothing more.

 

It really blows my mind that people think the government would freely attack us. This isn't North Korea, this isn't Russia, this is the United States.  While our government does do shady things, turning on their own people is not probable.   It's even funnier that you think the 2nd amendment protects us from the government.  It's an amendment which says we can own firearms, not an amendment which says we dictate who our leaders are.  The whole "protects us from the government" is a fall back reason, nothing more. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Giordano said:

 

Actually, it is.    Owning a weapon is not a right, but a privilege.  There's a reason not every single person can own one.  Slavery is taking away all of someone's rights and making them the lesser human being.  Nothing was taken out of context, he compared slavery to that of losing a firearm.  You can't make claims of word twisting or out of context just because you don't like someone's response to it. We responded directly to what he said, nothing more.

 

It really blows my mind that people think the government would freely attack us. This isn't North Korea, this isn't Russia, this is the United States.  While our government does do shady things, turning on their own people is not probable.   It's even funnier that you think the 2nd amendment protects us from the government. 

, not an amendment which says we dictate who our leaders are.  The whole "protects us from the government" is a fall back reason, nothing more. 

 

Wrong. Owning a weapon is a right, as literally stated by the US Constitution and declared by the US Supreme Court numerous times. Unless, of course, you know better than the US Supreme Court.

 

You took what he said literally and missed the context in which he was speaking, which led to you and the others misunderstanding him and thinking that he was comparing losing a gun directly to being a slave. That's why you find it so outrageous because you don't actually have any idea what he's talking about because you don't understand what he's trying to say.

 

You also don't understand the intentions behind the 2nd amendment as noted by:

Quote

It's an amendment which says we can own firearms

 

Yes... own firearms for what purpose?

 

If you don't believe that the government would freely oppress us and take our rights, you're completely blinded. You've got to understand that there are things going on that you and the general populous don't even know about. There's a reason why certain government positions require secret security clearances. A lot of those government actions are kept hidden, you have no idea. You just think that, since you don't actively see it with your own eyes, it's not happening or couldn't happen. That's a very naive mindset.

22 minutes ago, willpv23 said:

 

Funny that you claim I'm taking someone words out of context, then post a quote that is famously taken out of context.

But did I take the quote out of context? Sounds like you're trying to pull a strawman on me, friend.

Edited by TheDivineHustle

It takes a particularly intelligent person to hold a civilized political discussion with someone on the opposite side. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like these debates, they are very representative of why nothing changes in modern politics.

People will pick a binary position (left or right) and will refuse to capitulate or analyze any of the other sides' ideas. Even though both sides have some valid points and arguments.

And that's why nothing will truly change. Sure, the laws might change a bit when the candidate which represents the binary side gets into office, but they'll probably change right back when it inevitably flips. There's literally no point to this debate.

 

This topic is literally a thread about gun control -- but not only this thread, the entire reporting in the news. The thread on this topic might as well just be 'Gun control; hear yet another repeat of the same static points'. What a complete disservice to the victims of the attack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, TheDivineHustle said:

But did I take the quote out of context? Sounds like you're trying to pull a strawman on me, friend.

 

The first reference with some explanation here.

 

He's referencing tax here, with "purchase a little temporary safety" literally meaning forcing people to pay for their own protection. The Governor was refusing bills to appropriate funds for the protection of the Frontier against the French and Indians because he wanted to tax the Penn lands instead.

 

The second reference, during the revolution. He's essentially saying that compromise will not be possible regarding "the other two acts" and they would rather go to war than alter them. The "other two acts" he is referencing are "16. The American admiralty courts reduced to the same powers they have in England, and the acts establishing them to be reënacted in America; and 17. All powers of internal legislation in the colonies to be disclaimed by Parliament" - nothing to do with guns, or even individual rights at all (source for the two acts).

 


"Work and ideas get stolen, then you keep moving on doing your thing."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Giordano said:

If you are going to compare and use a courthouse as an example, be prepared to have it thrown back at you.  You mention the White House, a police station, library's in the ghetto.  Do you not understand that you are comparing?  Why do you think the White House has a shit ton of armed guards?  You act like we aren't doing anything and schools are defenseless.  Again, schools have an SRO.  You seem to think one officer is a poor number and can't do anything.  Do you really believe the answer is having 10+ police officers at the school?  It's a school, not a prison, not the White House, not a military installation.  A school.

 I do know what I am compairing school's to, and that is a government facility, ran by the government that is unguarded in most cases with little to no effort placed on the school's that house your children and the children of other's, but the security of a school seems to mean absolutely nothing to anyone.

  You would rather restrict me from owning what I own and have done no bad with instead of starting by protecting the school's in a manner that you wish uppon every other government facility in the country.  If my method does not work then I would admit that I am wrong, but if my method stops people from entering school's and shooting children, then it would be a far better outcome than these other methods suggested. 

2 hours ago, Giordano said:

I didn't twist anything.  In fact I quoted everything I replied to.  You seem to be under the assumption that if it was voted to have an armed guard at the door at all times, that guard would be there all day, five days a week, facing the door like a robot.  You really are forgetting human nature and that this is a living person.  Can you honestly tell me you'd willingly volunteer to be an armed guard that just stared at the front doors all day long and did nothing else what so ever?

  You did twist it to make it seem preposterous and a fire hazard.  You act like no one has ever guarded a building before, you make it seem that the guard's emplaced at the school's would be acting like the queens guard, they wouldn't.  You make it seem that the only way that we can guard school's with my method is to use only 1 officer at the school and never rotating him with other officer's at the school's.  You have no idea what security looks like and refuse to open your eyes to how it work's.

 

2 hours ago, Giordano said:

1) Yes, they guard the door, and this would be acceptable in, say, a prison.  In a school?  A staff member acting as a greeter is the best solution.  We do not need to waste an officer's time making him a door guard.  If anything, bring on an actual security guard.  Police officer's job is not to stand watch, especially not at a school

   It would not be a prison, get that threw your head, and what the hell would a greeter do to someone that walks in with the intent to do harm to people?  Say "Hi welcome to this school, we have done absolutely nothing to protect this school exept impose registration, phycye evaluations, and restrictions.  Is your gun registered and did you get a licence or permit to be able to have that sir?"

2 hours ago, Giordano said:

2) There is a huge difference between guarding the school and standing there like a statue.  The SRO I had did his job with flying colors.  He'd walk around and do some foot patrol a lot.  Especially during lunch.  Never once was he the door guard, and guess what?  We never had an issue!  I get that times have changed, but it is still unnecessary to have a police officer as a door man.

  And guess what?  Sandy hook didn't either, neither did Parkville, or Orlando, or even Columbine.  When it happens is when these measures will work.

2 hours ago, Giordano said:

Inadequate?  So because the staff member who was stationed at the door wasn't armed, our security was inadequate and we were at risk?  How does this make any sense what so ever?  Metal detectors doesn't solve the problem.  They might force a shooter to act way earlier than intended, but it doesn't magically take their guns away and leave them unarmed.  Nor does having a cop there stop it either.  Guy walks in and immediately shoots the cop.  Then what?  What did an armed door guard do?

  Having a unarmed staff member at the door acting as security does absolutely nothing and never will to stop a shooter that waltz inside and starts shooting.  If they get inside the school with a gun that they stole from their grandpa's closet or from a house that they broke into or even one they purchased from a criminal could not have been stopped if he was required to buy a permit, or get a evaluation, you are hiding the solution at hand and trying to punish other's for the actions of someone that never intended to follow the law.

2 hours ago, Giordano said:

and guess what happened? You got in trouble for fighting.   As bad as bullies are, unless they hit you first, fighting them doesn't solve shit.  If you throw the first punch over words, you deserve to be expelled and charged.  Violence solves nothing.  Just because hitting someone yields a desirable result doesn't mean you should do it.

  Sometimes getting into a little bit of trouble to stop someone from attacking you is worth it.  It is called self defense.  

 

  I never said to punch someone because they said some word's you do not like, I did say that "STICKS AND STONES MAY BREAK MY BONES BUT WORD'S WILL NEVER HURT ME".  Think about that really hard.  Someone can say all the word's to you that they want and you will not be harmed because other people's opinions do not dictate your life.

3 hours ago, willpv23 said:

You seriously have an issue with needing to prove that you are mentally able to own something that can take a life away in mere milliseconds?

Yes I do because guns are not the only things on this planet that can be USED to take someone's life away in mere milliseconds.  You don't have to go to a gun shop to buy a gun, it is like saying that because I conceal a weapon without a license makes me a criminal intent on doing un-necessary harm to other's.

3 hours ago, willpv23 said:

Honestly now you're starting to sound like the Australian news when they called us "underground hackers" for modding GTA. Restricting guns is nowhere near slavery and it's just ridiculous to claim that.

  No I am not, I am sounding like an individual that wants to be left to live my life as I see fit, just as you wish to live your life the way that you see fit.  

  And I said to subjugate an INDIVIDUAL, to live they way that YOU see fit, is on the same path as slavery.  Meaning that if you want me to do thing's in the manner that you want and I do not agree with it but still am forced to live by it, makes it slavery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ToeBius said:

No I am not, I am sounding like an individual that wants to be left to live my life as I see fit, just as you wish to live your life the way that you see fit.  

  And I said to subjugate an INDIVIDUAL, to live they way that YOU see fit, is on the same path as slavery.  Meaning that if you want me to do thing's in the manner that you want and I do not agree with it but still am forced to live by it, makes it slavery.

 

I want to live my life surrounded by nuclear weapons that could destroy the entire world, therefore I should be able to buy them. An exaggeration, but no different than your argument of "it should be legal because I want it."


"Work and ideas get stolen, then you keep moving on doing your thing."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's nice and all to say "Let's put metal detectors, guards at the entrance, shut all doors but the entrance and make them openable only in case of fire hazard or other stuff, call for a 24/7 satellite surveillance, a bunker and an arsenal of nuke (barely exaggerating there) to prevent mass shootings in schools".

 

It's nice, yeah. It feels safe. Inside.

 

Meanwhile, the guy who wants to shoot the kids just has to wait for the end of class where all the kids go back home to shoot them when they all go out. From the only open door. Making all those safety measures irrelevant. Therefore, the issue doesn't lie in the schools safety measures, but elsewhere.

 

Where? Hm, I do wonder... 🤔

 

29 minutes ago, ToeBius said:

Yes I do because guns are not the only things on this planet that can be USED to take someone's life away in mere milliseconds.  You don't have to go to a gun shop to buy a gun, it is like saying that because I conceal a weapon without a license makes me a criminal intent on doing un-necessary harm to other's.

 

What else can take a life in mere milliseconds? A bomb? You need to know where to find the materials, how to build it and how to trigger it. A knife? You gotta know where to exactly stab your victim if you want to kill them that fast and that quickly, on top of knowing how to fight with one to overcome anyone who'd have any knowledge about self-defense. A car? It's not a 100% kill, and you need to know how to drive one. I don't see what else really that could kill someone in mere milliseconds.

 

A gun does though, because it requires little training to shoot someone at point blank range, getting access to it is relatively easy since there's no permit required in most cases, nor is there any kind of psychological test to see if you're some kind of psycho or an irresponsible human being who'd use a gun like a toy. And you can't dodge a bullet. So, that excuse of "many things can be used to kill someone quick" is pretty irrelevant.

Edited by Hystery

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Giordano said:

It is a school, not a facility with classified information or some black ops site.  School's have security, maybe some don't have adequate enough, and in those cases, changes can be made.  However, your proposal is that we turn schools into Area 51

  So you find it more important to not make sure that school's are safe and would rather allow anyone to come in and leave without question.  My local courthouse has 5 officer's in the facility and you think that putting 2 officer's into a school with metal detectors and one way in and one way out, unless there is an emergency, is like making kid's prisoners and compairing that to Area 51?  You are delusional, protect your politicians better than your kid's, don't even try to protect them in any way that you wish to protect other's in this country.  That is your logic.

I have not once pointed anywhere near making a school area 51, LISTEN to me and stop trying to twist what I say over and over.

3 hours ago, Giordano said:

Are you seriously comparing restricting guns to slavery?  Am I really reading this?  There is HUGE, HUGE, HUGE difference between taking away someone's right to own a gun and taking away their humanity.

  Once again will you open your eyes up, and read what I just said, "To subjugate another individual, to live the way that you see fit, is on the same path as slavery. "  Can you please tell me where in that sentence it says anything about guns?

 

3 hours ago, Giordano said:

 

You do realize why we need people to prove they are capable of owning a firearm, right?  Not everyone has the mental capacity for it.  A perfect example is my neighbor who is 35, but mentally 7. 

  Do you find anything else in the world that he can do not possible?  What if he drove a car?  Do you think that if he goes into a gun shop that they will sell him a gun?  It is perfectly legal to deny selling a gun to someone if you don't want to.

3 hours ago, Giordano said:

Since some people are scared, don't like confrontations, or whatever it may be, you essentially are telling them to suck it up and defend themselves.  Here you go again with "letting evil prevail".  This is real life, and these are CHILDREN.  Understand that someone who bullies as a teenager might become the nicest adult who regrets all they did, so lets stop labeling people as 'evil'.  Furthermore, as nice as it is for people to step in and help, it is not mandatory.  No one has to help, no one has to do anything.  You can have all the issues with it you want, but you don't have a right to talk crap to them or act like they are lesser human beings because they didn't act.

  I never said that standing up for someone is mandatory, read a little slower and you will see what I am saying, I said that we need to ENCOURAGE people to stand up for those that cannot stan up for themselves.  And we also need to start teaching people to NOT be scared and encourage them to be brave.  

 

  And I never talked to anyone like crap, damnit, I have not insulted anyone or looked uppon them as lesser.  You are painting me a colour that I am not.  I have stood up to these people and I have seen other's stand up to them too, I encourage everyone to stand up to these pricks because you are not worthless, you are a human that trys to do good and you should not let someone stomp on you or any other's.

 

  On that note, shame on you for suggesting that a looking down on other's when I continue to try and encourage people to stand up for themselves and other's.

3 hours ago, Giordano said:

There is no evil.  There are bad people who do bad things, and good people who do good things, but this whole 'good' and 'evil' thing is purely fantasy.   Yes, there are some people who do truly heinous things, but that does not make them an evil person. We all do the things we do for a reason, and sometimes, that reason is out of our control.

  WTF do you think evil is?  Mordor?  If you can stop someone from attacking you, would you?

3 hours ago, Giordano said:

Here's the thing, you have zero proof or evidence to back this up.  Every law on the book has failed?  Huh, didn't know we have rapes, murders, riots, looting, etc going on every second without any sort of repercussions!  Why, maybe I'll go steal someone's car since the law fails and I'll get away with it.

  When no one gets caught and tried after they do a crime, then the law that was put in place to stop them did not work.  It is illegal to kill someone and yet people do it and get away with it everyday.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, willpv23 said:

 

I want to live my life surrounded by nuclear weapons that could destroy the entire world, therefore I should be able to buy them. An exaggeration, but no different than your argument of "it should be legal because I want it."

  So you think, that if I want to own an Glock and an AR, in order to defend myself, it is as equal to you wanting to own nukes? 

 

56 minutes ago, Hystery said:

It's nice and all to say "Let's put metal detectors, guards at the entrance, shut all doors but the entrance and make them openable only in case of fire hazard or other stuff, call for a 24/7 satellite surveillance, a bunker and an arsenal of nuke (barely exaggerating there) to prevent mass shootings in schools".

 

It's nice, yeah. It feels safe. Inside.

 

Meanwhile, the guy who wants to shoot the kids just has to wait for the end of class where all the kids go back home to shoot them when they all go out. From the only open door. Making all those safety measures irrelevant. Therefore, the issue doesn't lie in the schools safety measures, but elsewhere.

 

Where? Hm, I do wonder... 🤔

  Hmmm.... Not me or millions of other firearm owners.  Maybe you should look at the evil individual, that you can't find.  Not the gun.  What do you want?  Everyone to be chained up and unable to cause any harm to other's?

 

1 hour ago, Hystery said:

What else can take a life in mere milliseconds? A bomb? You need to know where to find the materials, how to build it and how to trigger it. A knife? You gotta know where to exactly stab your victim if you want to kill them that fast and that quickly, on top of knowing how to fight with one to overcome anyone who'd have any knowledge about self-defense. A car? It's not a 100% kill, and you need to know how to drive one. I don't see what else really that could kill someone in mere milliseconds.

 

A gun does though, because it requires little training to shoot someone at point blank range, getting access to it is relatively easy since there's no permit required in most cases, nor is there any kind of psychological test to see if you're some kind of psycho or an irresponsible human being who'd use a gun like a toy. And you can't dodge a bullet. So, that excuse of "many things can be used to kill someone quick" is pretty irrelevant.

  And when you shoot someone, you have to know where to shoot them.  Just because you shoot someone it does not mean that they will die.  It is not hard to stab someone, even to death.  And it is not hard to drive a car, even if it is to try and kill people.  Your argument is flawed and irrelevant because you continue to fail to acknowledge that people can be killed with other thing's than guns.  This whole topic is only an issue because of some middle class kids that got killed.  You would never publicly argue this case in my neighborhood, which on fact most people have guns in order to stop the criminals that wish to do harm to them.

 

  And you don't need a permit to drink then get into a car and drive then run a stop light and kill people.  You have no argument.  You can kill people with just about anything and you cannot protect people from criminals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...