Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[delphonso]

I also maintain it's hypocritical: there are many more things that kill and injure far more people per <pick your time period> than gun violence, yet "we" justify those things away simply because they are less sensational and because they are things "we" don't want to have taken away.

This is a fine criticism of the opposition but is not an argument against gun control. Pursuing gun control does not prevent us from pursuing any other life saving measure (such as better access to education, which increase average life expectency greatly).

[Frumple]

Put another way: If you need gun bans / controls to keep you safe, you've already lost in some philosophical sense.  I also maintain it's hypocritical: there are many more things that kill and injure far more people per <pick your time period> than gun violence, yet "we" justify those things away simply because they are less sensational and because they are things "we" don't want to have taken away.

About the only thing I'm aware of as (or more) capable of killing people as firearms is nuclear/biological/chemical shit and explosives, maybe fire. You'll note that's all things, even in most of the US, that's heavily regulated, and largely pretty well enforced. Firearms very much stand out.

It's not just a matter of other things being less sensational or not wanting them taken away, it's a matter of all that other shit being far less easy to kill someone with, especially in a short period of time. The overall death toll's higher because of greater use or more folks dealing with the whatever, not greater danger. There's no hypocrisy involved with that.

Though yeah, del hits a good point. There's bigger killers (for all firearm related deaths are still a pretty fucking huge one stateside!), but it's not like we're not trying to address those, too.

[MrRoboto75]

like sure, cars kill people more, but also like we have things like traffic laws plus cars are heavily regulated for crash and pedestrian safety.  Evidently, we can regulate cars but not firearms.

[scriver]

Cows too, probably

And maybe bees?

(whaddayamean "rhetorical" )

[dragdeler]

Put another way: If you need gun bans / controls to keep you safe, you've already lost in some sophism sense.

Holemaker= security
No holemaker= insecurity

If anything it's a freedom to own a fancy toy. What's next: you gonna contort that axis of the spectrum not to go from freedom to security? Lemme guess one side blanket "regulations" the other end freedom AND security. Just like that, why not, exceptionally sensical.

It does make sense tho, since you allready said once there can be no morals without scripture, your moral disorientation actually becomes self-explanatory in the light of that statement.


Man bumber gets the people here riled up with tenuous sources but nobody kicks me in the philosophical nutsack like mctraveller... My metaphysical form weeps every time. Sorry for being gotten again mctrav, I should just shut up and despair because this is obviously pointless, at least that way one of us remains unaffected.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

This is just mean and should be totally ignored, but I take issue with this particular thing.The least of the things to do while promenading such odious opinions (ok ok that thing up there was just a shorthand for some tiresome mental acrobatics fair enough) would be to be less well spoken. Like how aren't these people drolling and lulling and slurring and riddling their texts with errors. It's the one thing I will never get over, nothing makes me more mad than saying something stupid in a seemingly smart way. It makes me want to burn all languages that were ever invented to the ground, leave no trace of this stuff, it was obviously a mistake all a mistake. Our brains are were wired for small mouth noises, and the small mouth noises got invented so chaotically, and the wires laid so randomly, that the whole abbheration is hijacking a majority of brains getting them stuck in "logical" loops, or semantical short-circuits. And those are the folks who actually make an attempt to think for themselves... everything is hopeless. Nothing convinces me more that language fails, it simply doesn't work, than seeing something non-sensical well formulated.

[MaxTheFox]

like sure, cars kill people more, but also like we have things like traffic laws plus cars are heavily regulated for crash and pedestrian safety.  Evidently, we can regulate cars but not firearms.

This. I don't want to outright ban guns but regulation is, IMO, necessary.

[MrRoboto75]

Cows too, probably

And maybe bees?

(whaddayamean "rhetorical" )

Pit bulls maim more people than poisonous tarantulas, yet you're allowed to have one of those as a pet.

[MorleyDev]

Sad thing is as things stand it may well have been less bloody if police hasn't gotten involved. If he'd done this kind of attack using his bladed weapons rather than had them confiscated and gone out and purchased firearms, then there's a lot more limiting factors on the amount of harm that can be done with bladed weapons.

That's...a pretty broken system.

(Which is kinda the problem with firearms when trying to draw equivalence with other things, in terms of ease-of-harm you can do with a single one they're way up there compared to alternative means of harm).

[Starver]

like sure, cars kill people more, but also like we have things like traffic laws plus cars are heavily regulated for crash and pedestrian safety.  Evidently, we can regulate cars but not firearms.

I saw this xkcd, again, the other day. So it was also my first thought (along with the likes of the purely-automotive multiple-homocides/manslaughters as most recently seen in the likes of Berlin/Waukesha.


But it certainly seems strange to me that nowhere near as much attention is currently paid, in some quarters, to the possible ownership and use of slug-throwing death-dealers than to lumbering[1] multi-use machine whose central purpose is the movement of its operator and most of its other uses are to simultaneously move people or things the operator wishes to transport along with themself. I mean, my own experience of my driving lessons/test seem to be more than the popularised idea of Drivers' Ed 101, that is usually played down/for laughs in US fiction, but it seems that the gun-handling equivalent is even less of an inconvenience for many, and with calls to make even those nominal requirements into no more than hand-waves of official recognition of the right to ursine forelimbs...


Again, here I am showing how culturally unfamiliar I am with the reality on the ground. But I just remain consistently bemused. Never mind "separated by a common language", there's many other things that make me realise that no matter how much I think I understand America (by proxy, via the small or large screen, or occasionally a book), there is much that continues to bemuse me. My only consolation is that much less (or, of that that remains, more sharply stereotypical in scipe) British/etc stuff is 'thought' to be understood over on that side of the divide, with comcomitant changes in the reciprocal bemusement-quotient.


(You know, it's not unprecedented that an Amendment has been Re-Amended out of existence, if that's the problem. Not that I expect that this 'solution' is unproblematic and implementable in itself. All I know is that I know nothing about how to get from here to there, or possibly there to here.)

[1] You can't usually conceal-carry a car... With or without any necessary permit!

[Loud Whispers]

If the US military were to treat a domestic insurgency the way they treat everyone else, they'd still crush them. Hard to attack from a rooftop when the whole building has been leveled by a drone strike.

This is the same trouble the US military had in Afghanistan though. Yeah sure you can sexually identify as an attack helicopter and blow up the gunman but the gunman has already attacked everyone by the time you are aware you're under attack. Even if you kill them they have already completed their terrorism

[EuchreJack]

To be fair, the US has a generally AWFUL history in regards to countering foreign insurgencies. They LOST Vietnam, and now they LOST Afghanistan.
The only times the US has been competent is when they supply other nation's people to fight insurgencies.
And even there, the results aren't spectacular.  Colombia is a good example of general US incompetence when it meddles in these areas.

As for gun rights, my biggest argument is that most gun laws exist to disarm poor people, not rich people.

I'm also reminded of the Boston Marathon bombin.  They used what is called a =https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure_cooker_bombPressure cooker bomb.  My point is that outlawing guns isn't going to prevent these murders from occurring, but will rather transform how they occur.

And also, the Second Amendment exists in the United States. It's not going anywhere.

[EuchreJack]

Cows too, probably

And maybe bees?

(whaddayamean "rhetorical" )

Pit bulls maim more people than poisonous tarantulas, yet you're allowed to have one of those as a pet.

Pit bulls are actually a great argument to explain why gun owners want to own guns, and get pissed when people try to disarm them.

At least, most pit bull owners would probably understand it.

[dragdeler]

Obviously we need more pitbulls with guns then.


crab with a knife and pitbull with a gun about to drop the hottest gangster rap album of 2022





The pitbul feared for it's hunting drive, yet renown to hold itself far from the kid or the other dog it grabbed in order to enable being shot cleanly, it's a genetic trait that has been bred in at some point in history between gun wielding abraham and ar15 brandishing king david

[MorleyDev]

You stand a better chance outrunning a pit bull than a bullet.

[TamerVirus]

You stand a better chance outrunning a pit bull than a bullet.

Well they don't call him Mr. Worldwide for nothing