• Two US TV journalists shot dead on air
    1,049 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48630470]This pot's beyond the point of attempting to hold an argument with that kettle. If he wants to nut up and posit a real argument then he can at any time.[/QUOTE] For someone else to have the opportunity to have a calm debate with you, you need to be calm and willing not to throw shit at people for arguing with you. It's important to be the bigger person in order to allow others to see your arguments and those of others as being correct or false based on their own merits, as opposed to emotional baggage. Ad hominem is not a valid debate tactic for this reason, if you actually want to convince someone you are right you need to communicate your points in a fair and logical manner without giving away to emotion. [QUOTE]I totally understand what you mean but if my shit was lost my posts would be much different. I've tried to reason with him multiple times over the past 27 pages and it never works.[/QUOTE] There is no point in getting angry and shitposting though. If you are convinced someone is willingly not understanding your argument then you can either try to communicate differently or leave the thread, but don't resort to name-calling as it makes you look vindictive and doesn't help your argument any.
[QUOTE=WarriorWounds;48630403]I understand you like to use the word "Narrative" ironically after your previous posts of constructing a false one about me, but please keep your psuedointellectual pacifier in the closest where it belongs.[/QUOTE] And here gentlemen is where any attempt at constructing an argument actually disappears and he resorts to ad hominem
This thread should die.
[QUOTE=Zyler;48630488]For someone else to have the opportunity to have a calm debate with you, you need to be calm and willing not to throw shit at people for arguing with you. It's important to be the bigger person in order to allow others to see your arguments and those of others as being correct or false based on their own merits, as opposed to emotional baggage. Ad hominem is not a valid debate tactic for this reason, if you actually want to convince someone you are right you need to communicate your points in a fair and logical manner without giving away to emotion.[/QUOTE] I totally agree, but all I'm saying is it takes two to tango.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48630506]I totally agree, but all I'm saying is it takes two to tango.[/QUOTE] The purpose of an internet argument isn't to convince the person you're arguing with, it's to convince the bystanders who are reading the thread.
Since I've been repeatedly falsely accused by this person of never presenting anything worthy of discussion I'll drop a subset of a few arguments that we've already had here again to shine the truth on the situation. 1) The people love guns in our country and will come up with any reason to keep hold of them. The bill of rights was passed in 1791, and with its second amendment came the right to keep and bear arms. This amendment was created for the purpose of having a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state. This amendment was relevant in the time it was passed due to the violent world that Americans lived in at the time, protection from the elements of an evolving frontier. Nowadays, our military in the strongest in the world, frontier protection is not longer a concern. Violent crime is very high in our country, our prisons are full of people for violent crime, our police forces are armed to the teeth. This amendment is a relic, that many people who really love guns, have been raised near and appreciate guns cling to, despite its actual necessity or healthiness for our society. I'm not trying to bash gun owners, my father and myself own and shoot guns, but even I think a lot of the gun violence in this country is due to the ridiculous ease of acquisition. Mental health is a root cause of the problem, but our current gun laws are also an accessory to their crimes. Addressing one and not the other just seems illogical. 2) I'm not advocating that we ban them all, I just think certain things like the ease of acquisition, to the point that any billy bob joe who can waltz into a gun show, shouldn't be able to immediately buy and use any gun he would like right then and there to go kill or hurt people with. You have a defeatist attitude when you say things like gang, drug, and illegal activities will never be stopped, even with the introduction of stricter gun laws. Surely having gangs running around with knives, would be easier for the police to control than fully armed to the teeth gun weilding gang members. You are embracing and attempting to vindicate our violent culture when you refuse to even begin to address the idea of adjusting our gun laws. I'm sorry but your point of view isn't a solution, it's just a reactionary position that holds the status quo. Rome wasn't built in a day, our violent culture won't be solved in a day either, in my ideal world we would be able to have guns and not a ridiculous violent crime culture as well. But currently we need to stop the bad apples first. That isn't going to be solved by always maintaining that our populace always be voraciously armed. 3) [QUOTE=agentfazexx;48544969]That isn't possible. I go to gun shows all the time. You still have to do the FFL paperwork as you would at a normal store.[/QUOTE] It operates on a state by state basis, other states including my own have it where you can just buy a gun and run with it. No paperwork or wait times. You don't see a problem with that? [QUOTE=Grenadiac;48544976]How do you solve the bad apples without criminalizing and abusing law abiding gun owners (which constitutes the vast, vast, vast, vast, vast majority of gun owners)? I own 12 - in all solution put forward so far I'm out a collection worth about $10,000 with further historic and sentimental value as many of them are approaching 100 years of age. [/QUOTE] Well that really is the hard part of the question isn't it. It's not a simple one size fits all solution for this sort of thing. I think that at least as a basic measure, why not just start with ending this no wait time/ no paperwork gun show nonsense, surely that would help something. Handguns are by and far the worst perpetrators for most crimes, as mentioned earlier, I think limiting their acquisition would help the most, I'm not a lawyer, I don't know how to draft legislation that would selectively protect legitimate and safe gun owners while also punishing those who would commit violent crimes, but could we agree that the principle is just and if there was a way, we should implement it? That's just a couple of posts from the first five pages, there's plenty more I could post, please stop blatantly lieing, insulting me, and thread shitting Grenadiac, you are just embarassing yourself. Your strict pro-gun never change anything stance will never solve any problems for anybody, trying to take a virtual dump over anybody who healthily disagrees with your views over an internet feud is just sad.
You've now taken a different angle - "I don't know how to make this better, but don't you think it should be made better?" I'm always going to fully oppose any measure that doesn't demonstrably improve the situation. I will never approve of a blanket ban or any kind of registry because the first is tyrannical and the second leads to the first. Of course any measure should be taken that can keep guns out of the hands of people who will without a shadow of a doubt do something wrong with them. But every single measure proposed so far, in this thread and in real politics, has criminalized legal gun owners or failed to confront the real issue. I believe any establishment specifically for the purpose of transferring firearms from one ownership to another should involve paperwork and a background check. This would include gun shows. I do not agree with wait times. I believe information regarding mental health status and criminal history should be made available to the background check (currently only whether you are a felon or not shows up). I believe the government should be required to cooperate with the background check - currently it is not - if they refuse to respond with the felon status in a given time, the background check is considered clean and the transaction goes forward. Reportedly this is how the shooter in this case ended up with his pistol. I believe individuals demonstrating signs of mental unwellness should be provided free healthcare and encouraged gently to seek help, rather than being cast out and mistreated. I believe firearms are a big responsibility. I believe a free, government-sponsored safety course should be required to purchase a firearm, earning you a safety certificate. This will be your "license". Even in private transfer it should be illegal to sell a firearm to an individual without this certificate. This will cut down on mishandling incidents and accidental deaths. Let's see... I believe the current laws regarding SBRs and machine guns are stupid and do more harm than good. Scrap the entire NFA, '86 machine gun ban, etc, start fresh. Require an additional safety course for machine guns that teaches you how to handle full auto fire and require all machine gun sales to be reported to the ATF, private or otherwise. This creates a paper trail leading right up to the person who decided to break the law. Machine gun/"destructive device" (tanks, etc.) ownership should be restricted to individuals with a fully [B]non-violent, non-felon[/B] criminal history. Fuck the concept of the SBR, it's outdated. Ta-da. There are some actual solutions from the mind of a gun owner. Really any regulation you create will be subverted by someone looking to break the law. It makes sense to have them to screen out impulse committers but you can only regulate so much before it becomes disruptive to responsible, legal owners. Don't forget the amount of history that meets its end under a plasma cutter because of fear-mongering - images of StG-44s and Thompson SMGs sitting in pieces in waste barrels come to mind here. Is it worth melting down that history on the off chance that someone might have used one of those guns to commit a crime? Not to me. It doesn't make any more sense than crushing a vintage Ferrari because someone might have used it to run someone over, but didn't. [img]http://i48.tinypic.com/2rpw4n4.jpg[/img] Who was saved by this?... My point is any regulation like "ban all machine guns" is damaging and poorly thought out. It's clear from things like this that we need to be more careful with regulation.
[QUOTE=cr2142;48613794][url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout[/url][/QUOTE] It should be noted that the North Hollywood Shootout occurred with firearms illegally modified to be full auto, owned by people who should not have been able to possess them, during the height of the Clinton Assault Weapon Ban.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.