Quote: Wow, this thread is shit.
Thanks for being such a self-centered, shitty poster. Made it easier to get Soul to ban you.
I go away for two days and this is what happens.
This is easily the worst thing I've read in a while, or at least it feels like it.
You're also making yourself sound like an ignorant nerd.
because 'morals are not absolute', I will probably lose my shit.
Are all of you middle-class nerds or something?
Please spare me further copy-pasting from yourlogicalfallacyis.com, because it's evident to me that nerds cannot use it properly.
I'm being quite charitable responding like this.
I seldom run into folks who are this full of themselves. This is an internet forum, I'd advise against letting ego play into the equation... Nobody is using "yourlogicalfallacyis.com" or whatever the shit, either. You can't try to curtail an argument by ignoring fallacies and just saying people don't know how they are used. Maybe you yourself should study up on them. For a forum who is a self-proclaimed hugbox some of you, especially those who claim to be in control, seem like pretty self-centered people who are quick to insult anyone who they don't agree with.
Quote:Why in the holy Hell should I trust any research done by Wes? Old research, at that! Is there a reason we're not using more professionally researched statistics? I do agree poverty is a related and serious issue, though.
You can plug the numbers into a graph yourself if you like, and I linked a secondary source. He also re-ran the numbers for different states and came up with the same result recently.
Quote: Are all of you middle-class nerds or something? How the fuck does that negate my points? Please spare me further copy-pasting from yourlogicalfallacyis.com, because it's evident to me that nerds cannot use it properly. How do your statistics invalidate my point? What about the adults being shot, as well?
What are you even talking about "middle class nerds". What is that even supposed to mean? It in and of itself doesn't negate your points, but the argument following it does. You are arguing from a place of emotion, and you're ignoring the actual numbers and implications. I'm saying people going on about "zomg what about the children" isn't a valid argument. Very, very few kids are actually killed with guns. It's negligable.
What about the adults? The same amount will be killed, gun control doesn't curtail the violence.
Quote: Did you even read my post? I [b]already stated this. That does not mean we shouldn't try and curtail it.
I clearly read your post... I never said we shouldn't try to curtail gun violence, but doing it by banning certain guns and shit isn't giong to be effective.
Quote:This leads me to believe any sort of scenario that would conceivably support a citizen revolt would be more likely handled in a non-violent way, or without significant action on part of the rebels. Think foreign intervention/velvet revolution. I'm no stranger to the Vietnam War, so I don't discount guerrilla warfare, but we didn't have drones back in the late '60s. Or...a lot of shit we have now. They'd likely crank up NSA monitoring and analyze more of the data, if the theoretical rebels were using telecommunication at all. I'm reasonably sure the government could track amateur radio, as well.
I meant a good deal of U.S soldiers would refuse to actually fight U.S citizens. The increased technology is different, sure, but there are modern day examples of the U.S military fighting groups like Al-Queda and other guerilla groups and having a pretty difficult time actually succeeding. These groups are pretty small. If the U.S became an environment that necessitated a violent citizen response, the rebels would have a shitton of people willing to step up. Lots more than what we've been up against in the mid-east. I believe it's definitely a viable fight. That'ss the last thing I want to see, and I don't think it's likely, but discounting it as an impossible fight anyway isn't a good argument.
Quote: I must question your knowledge of the common-sense gun regulation that was recently discussed. That's not to say allocation of more resources or improvement of existing laws is out of the picture, either. I do think action should be taken at the roots of the problem, as I assume you do, but focusing only on that would be an incomplete solution.
There are inherent limitations on what we can realistically do with gun control. We could create a ban on every single gun, but we literally could not even hope to confiscate all the guns. Similarly, baning certain types of guns isn't really going to do much good. It would be impossible. Look at NYC, where we have a handgun ban. There are actually a lot more people who own handguns for defensive purposes in New York than there are in areas where it's legal. If people want guns, they're going to get guns. I can literally just buy any type of illegal firearm I want right now. (I'm broke so not really, but give me a few grand and I could get you what you want.) Enforcing certain forms of gun bans is just not plausible.
It's actually becoming less and less plausible to ban guns as technology moves forward. Any machineist (sp?) can build a basic gun out of pot-metal that would be good for a few hundred rounds. We now have 3d printers that can similarly create magazines, or entire assault rifles out of plaster. They work, no skill required.
The problem is, 1 in 300 people or so are inclined towards violent crime. I don't think banning any sort of gun is going to keep weapons out of these peoples hands. I think the number of people inclined toward violence needs to be reduced, and I don't think more gun control is going to effect that at all. These people are going to get guns, or alternatively they are going to use other weapons and statistically continue to kill the same amount of people. That is, until the underlying issues are fixed.
Quote: Why would you really need it? I can understand gun collectors and aficionados, but those are distinct from gun hoarders. And people who for some reason don't feel safe enough with handguns, shotguns or assault rifles with less than 15 bullets per magazine.
Why not? You're trying to paint a picture that everyone who owns these sorts of guns are violent. If they're not violent, I don't really see a big problem with hoarding guns. If that's what they're into, and they aren't causing problems, I don't see any real issue here. The vast majority of these people do not use them against other people. I think there's a fear among these people that the Government is going to come after them, the FED and the IRS and the big gubmint and all those go into it. It's a misguided fear that the government is coming after them or will eventually. I don't agree with these fears, but I also don't think they're doing any harm unless they're using these guns for nefarious reasons, which they aren't.
Quote: I can agree with this, although perhaps doing the latter may lead to the former. Works for most of Europe.
Yeah, that's what I'm hoping.
Quote: They still happen, and they've been on the rise. I'm being quite charitable responding like this.
They're negligable when talking about national firearm legislation. In this context, individual shootings are so much more prevalent and destructive they take way more precedence in the discussion.
Quote: I can agree it's a good thing to do, but it's only part of the picture. I should think the common-sense gun regulation would cover the other crimes you mentioned.
I'm pretty sure it won't have much of an effect.