[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51347888]I dont think itll be possible to oppose the bad since the Republicans control everything.[/QUOTE]
In all fairness the Republicans don't even have enough in the senate to break filibusterers and if there are so much as 3 or 4 moderate Republicans in the Senate then it's entirely possible to block at least the worst of what might be tried.
[QUOTE=Ona;51351635]But again, I have to stress this: Gun regulation and gun control are [I]not[/I] the same thing as robbing citizens of their freedom to defend themselves. [/QUOTE]
That's literally, [I]exactly[/I] what it is when states like New Jersey and California require you to have a permit to own a weapon suitable for self-defense, then consider self-defense to not be a legitimate justification to get a permit. There are states in the US for which self-defense [I]is not considered a valid reason to own a gun[/I]. And these are the states that gun control advocates look to as models for the rest of the country.
[QUOTE=Ona;51351635]No, I can't walk into my local supermarket and grab a twelve gauge off the shelf. [/QUOTE]
We can't either. The more you post, the more I suspect you don't have a very good understanding of gun laws in the US.
[QUOTE=Ona;51351635]Last I checked, being able to walk down the street safe in the knowledge that I won't be shot at by people do don't like me for whatever reason was a pretty freeing situation.[/QUOTE]
Last I checked, being able to walk down the street safe in the knowledge that I won't be bombed by ISIS sympathizers recruited through the Internet was a pretty freeing situation. Repeal the First Amendment and let's exercise some proper restrictions on free speech so that we can all be safe. Putting restrictions on people is actually freedom.
(word games are not valid legal arguments)
[QUOTE=Ona;51351635]But hey, what do I know, it's not like I've been paying close attention to American gun policy for the past ten years or something. [/QUOTE]
Evidently not, because you keep repeating the ridiculously false 'walk into a supermarket and buy a shotgun off the shelf' idea of American gun regulation. Can you describe for me, in your own words, what the legal regulations are on buying a gun here?
-snip-
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_in_the_United_States_by_state[/url]
hmm big narcissistic wall of show off text...
Curiously avoiding mention of several key factors that dont match up with the narrative he is portraying. Disingenuously lumping suicide under "gun violence".
I wonder why
[editline]11th November 2016[/editline]
p.s ona your entire post there could've been condensed into about 3 paragraphs. You're not that interesting and you're not that witty, faggot
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Flaming" - Blazyd))[/highlight]
-snip-
[QUOTE=Ona;51354802]Yes, you're right, there [I]are[/I] states in the US where "self defence" isn't a valid reason for gun ownership. [/QUOTE]
So one of your arguments- 'having restrictions on your guns doesn't mean you don't have self-defense'- is utterly wrong in the American context. This is part of why the 2nd Amendment is cited in legal bids against overreaching gun control, as in the Heller vs DC case, which struck down a ban on handguns as unconstitutional. Have you heard of Heller? Are you aware of the legal factors involved in American self-defense laws when you post moralizing screeds about them?
[QUOTE=Ona;51354802]There are also states where you can literally buy shotguns, rifles and pistols from [I]Wallmart[/I]. Which leads me into my next point, being...[/QUOTE]
You're not even making an argument. Literally just 'you can buy guns at Wal-Mart! shock!', an empty emotional grab with no logical substance, leaving out that if you buy a gun at a Wal-Mart you're subject to all the same laws and regulations, including mandatory background checks and federal reporting, that you would experience at a dedicated gun store. Your posts are all chock-full of these diatribes about ways that you think the US gun culture is fucked up that have [I]absolutely no bearing whatsoever[/I] on the core argument, about your inability to comprehend the basic tenets of Constitutional law, that you keep citing this [B]irrelevant bullshit[/B] to try to somehow explain away.
[QUOTE=Ona;51354802]I hate to break it to you, pal. But if you're walking down the street and a car nearby blows up because somebody hid a bomb in it, it doesn't matter how many firearms you're packing, [I]you're probably gonna be dead.[/I][/QUOTE]
I don't even know how to respond to this- I guess I could point out that I was making an analogy to how other freedoms can lead to you being irrationally scared ('I am more free if we ban all drugs and alcohol because then I don't have to worry about drunk drivers when I'm walking down the street') but you have somehow turned it into a bizarre comparison that was never made. You have [I]utterly[/I] missed the point. Suggest re-reading for comprehension.
[QUOTE=Ona;51354802]I can't help but notice you're [I]yet again[/I] bringing up the first amendment.
Why is it that you persist in this idea that "gun control" equates instantly to "free speech being eradicated"? Not once have I criticised the first amendment, hell, I think it's one of the greatest ideas in history! It's so good that the majority of major countries in the world keep a similar, if not identical policy. It's also worth mentioning that I never [I]once[/I] suggested that America gets rid of the second amendment, either. As I mentioned, I'm actually in favour of gun ownership.[/QUOTE]
I keep bringing up the 1st Amendment because you keep repeating things that show that you don't understand how all the amendments- [I]all of them[/I]- work. I don't really care whether you're against or in favor of gun ownership, when you say 'this right is inapplicable because technology changes', you're wrong. Evidence: See 1st Amendment, which has been interpreted and applied to new technologies. When you say 'removing freedoms makes you more free because then you don't have to be worried about people misusing their rights', you're again wrong. Evidence: See 1st Amendment, which is not curtailed even when it is clearly a factor in hatred and violence. When you bring up all these other irrelevant details about gun violence rates, where you can buy guns, and contrasting free speech with gun ownership, I ignore it, because these are not relevant or valid arguments regarding Constitutional law.
[QUOTE=Ona;51354802](giant wall of nonsense)[/QUOTE]
This isn't high school and there's no word count minimum. Congratulations, you half-understand various state laws and can cite violence statistics. Good for you. Do some research on Constitutional law and look up 'brevity' in the dictionary and then maybe we can have a productive conversation.
[QUOTE=Ona;51354802](stuff)[/QUOTE]
Wonderful way to present "facts" without considering other factors or statistics. I'm gonna reuse some of the research and arguments I made in a post in another thread.
What does Walmart selling firearms have anything to do with anything? It's still subject to the same 4473s and NICS checks as required by law. Canada let's you buy firearms in sporting goods stores, does that mean they've got a gun control problem?
Deranged maniacs from ISIS being stopped by gun control? Tell me again how gun control did anything for European nations like France? It's idiotic to assume a gun-free zone is going to stop anyone whose entire intent is to murder. Preventing those who want to be responsible for their own safety from doing so isn't going to do anything when the playing field is made unbalanced.
You make a point about Alaska being very lax and having a high violence rate, and Rhode Island having very few gun owners and low violence, and then proceed to defend Cali by saying that the population makes it not that bad. Except you didn't use that same logic in the previous states. Those states have low population density, thus making low overall numbers affect rates more, which directly affects any statistics in the exact same way.
Suicide really isn't as much an argument for gun control; it's an argument for mental health (which the US does have an issue with). You don't blame things like rope, razors, prescription drugs, or a variety of other easily acquired methods.
[img]http://haruha.ru/d6g2x[/img]
While firearms may account for a very large percentage of the total suicides, they're not the only method, and unless you're going to go after the other easily acquired methods, it's not really pertinent.
[URL="http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm"]33k deaths.[/URL] Factoring out suicides, accidents, and negligence, you're left with about [URL="https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2010-2014.xls"]8 thousand[/URL] homicides. FBI lists about 250ish deaths from all kinds of rifles. Compare that to 1,567 stabbings, 435 blunt objects, and 660 with their fists, and the argument is clearly more to do with handguns, which many areas have heavy restrictions on already, yet it does nothing, like in Chicago.
Thing is, most firearms used in homicides are illegally acquired, [URL="http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/oct/05/joe-scarborough/msnbcs-joe-scarborough-tiny-fraction-crimes-commit/"]90%[/URL] being the [I]lowest[/I] estimate. Not much point in restrictions if nobody needs to care about them as long as they're gonna commit murder anyway. Not to mention the fact that if anyone wants someone dead, they'll find a way given enough intent.
There's also plenty of evidence pointing to the fact that increased regulations and bans do nothing to affect the homicide rate.
[img]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-CSE3YbYoc_M/UNMlQ6jG9fI/AAAAAAAAE9Q/xug8Ho9outI/s1600/Screen+shot+2012-12-20+at++Thursday,+December+20,+9.47+AM.png[/img]
[img]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Uy7V3Zl2MZ4/UNMlfuib0EI/AAAAAAAAE9Y/KReJQnzBvkw/s1600/Screen+shot+2012-12-20+at++Thursday,+December+20,+9.49+AM.png[/img]
Also, getting guns off the streets with buybacks is [URL="http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/12/gun-buybacks-popular-but-ineffective/1829165/"]ineffective[/URL].
It's inherently a pointless argument under the context of the US. I can make a much more in depth and longer argument but I don't want to spend long or copy-paste my previous argument.
Also, the reason people keep bringing up the 1st Amendment argument is because it's special pleading. Disregarding the 2nd by putting restrictions on it strictly because it's old fashioned ignores the very important tenet of the Constitution in that it is a living document, which anyone would be able to understand if they took a US Constitutional law course. All the Amendments are to be equally respected, and other posters have pointed this amongst many arguments out and yet you still fail to grasp it.
[QUOTE=Ona;51351635]What I fail to understand is why people have this idea that "any sort of regulation" equates instantly to "government oppression."
See, here's the thing: If I wanted a gun over here in Australia... [I]I could get one.[/I][/QUOTE]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't if functionally impossible to get a semi automatic rifle in Australia if you aren't a professional animal killer (like dogs)?
-snip-
[QUOTE=Ona;51357950]I don't know why I'm bothering to read through what you people write anymore, seeing as you're clearly not reading what I write. But hey, apparently some people have no appreciation for my obvious writing talents,[/QUOTE]
You'd have to put a hell of a lot of effort into coming across as any more of a condescending jackass.
For all your whinging about terror you are doing an amazing job at ridiculing and belittling people over beliefs that you don't seem to be making any real attempt to understand. Funny how that exact mentality just lost the presidential election.
[QUOTE=Zephyrs;51358187]You'd have to put a hell of a lot of effort into coming across as any more of a condescending jackass.
For all your whinging about terror you are doing an amazing job at ridiculing and belittling people over beliefs that don't seem to be making any real attempt to understand. Funny how that exact mentality just lost the presidential election.[/QUOTE]
I assure you, you can gauge the amount of fear and anxiety I'm experiencing by the amount of sarcasm and analogies I use. But sure, I'll admit that I'm, shall we say a [I]tad[/I] biased towards gun violence and U.S gun culture. Certain events (or rather, [I]a[/I] certain event) earlier this year has never really left my head, considering that had the world been just that slight bit different, I could have been part of it. And if that had come to pass, I might not even be here for you to argue with.
See, that's the biggest issue with all this. I'll admit I'm not an expert on these things. I'll admit that I get a kick out of the occasional heated argument with people online that can't affect me physically. And I'll admit that I don't have the same perspective as somebody who grew up in a very different culture than me.
However, the fact remains that I'm horrified of the mindset of these people. The idea that any crazy bastard can go out and buy a deadly weapon with little more than a flash of their I.D card (in some states, at least) sends a legitimate shiver down my spine, because I've met some pretty fucking terrible people in my life. Both online and in person. And I can think of several instances throughout my lifetime where just a single person having access to a gun could have resulted in my death.
So forgive me if I come across as a bit snarky, a bit sarcastic, a bit aloof.
It's my way of coping with a world in which a building full of innocent people can be butchered in cold blood for the "crime" of loving somebody.
And with that, I think this whole argument should take a rest, don't you? It's clear neither side of this "debate" is going to concede in any way. If it were easy to convince Americans that their cultural outlook on guns was problematic, then people more talented and more intelligent than me would have made changes to it years ago.
And no amount of talk regarding freedom, self defence, centuries old documents or cultural evolution are going to stop me from being scared of America and its people.
[QUOTE=Ona;51357950]But hey, apparently some people have no appreciation for my obvious writing talents, so I'll try to keep this response short, sweet and to the point:[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Ona;51358333]The idea that any crazy bastard can go out and buy a deadly weapon with little more than a flash of their I.D card (in some states, at least) sends a legitimate shiver down my spine[/QUOTE]
Okay, real talk, you wanna know why this discussion is heated and why the Americans in this thread aren't giving you much agreement?
It's because your posts are the [i]epitome[/i] of 'condescending non-American sharing their ill-informed opinions on American gun control'.
I picked out the second quote above because it reveals how little you actually know about American gun laws. Just flashing an ID? In what state? How about the 4473s? How about the mandatory background checks? How about the disqualifications for restraining orders, mental health history, or having ever committed a felony? Those aren't state laws, those are nation-wide, and then the state laws are on top of those.
But you don't seem to care about the facts of American gun ownership. You act like you can build a cogent argument on a combination of moral outrage and faux-intellectualism, facts be damned.
'The 2nd Amendment is outdated and doesn't apply!'
'What do you mean, that's not how amendments work? Who cares! You can buy a gun in Wal-Mart! Let me regurgitate ten pages of associated violence statistics'
It's not relevant to the argument you blew into this thread with, it's not even a relevant legal claim, it's just blind outrage at the idea of guns in Wal-Mart. No legal basis, no understanding of Constitutional law, just your feelings, and when you have feelings you don't need an argument amirite? Maybe if you actually made a cogent argument instead of smugly typing up big walls of irrelevant emotional hooks you'd get a better reply.
Oh, and for the record? [b]You don't know your own laws, let alone ours.[/b]
[QUOTE=Ona;51357950]Semi-automatic firearms with a magazine capacity of 10 or less (5 for shotguns) are classed as "Catagory C" weapons, which can be owned legally by sport shooters, hunters, firearm dealers, residence of rural properties, government agencies and collectors. If you want to own an AR-15, for instance, all you need is a Catagory C licence, which you can get fairly easily. The only real restriction in place there is magazine size.[/QUOTE]
[url=https://www.ag.gov.au/CrimeAndCorruption/Firearms/Documents/1996%20National%20Firearms%20Agreement.pdf]Australian National Firearms Agreement[/url]
Go read your own laws. Rimfire rifles with a capacity under 10 rounds are class C. [b]Any semi-automatic centerfire rifle[/b] is a class D. AR-15s are [b]completely illegal[/b] for civilian ownership in Australia. You hardly have any clue what you're talking about even in your own country, yet still feel qualified to ignorantly lecture to us about the state of our gun control because your misinformed idea of life in America makes you feel irrationally [i]scared[/i].
Fuck off with the patronizing, holier-than-thou, smug, condescending intellectual masturbation. It's thoroughly unconvincing.
[QUOTE=catbarf;51359053]-snip-[/QUOTE]
As I said, I'm not going to continue talking about this with you. All I've managed to do is make you and a a few other people incredibly angry at me to the point of literal name calling, and despite what you might think, this was never my intention.
The info I've presented to you is info I've gained through person research. If it's legitimately incorrect, then all I can do is apolagise for that and ask that, instead of spending several paragraphs berating me for being - in your own words - a "'condescending non-American sharing their ill-informed opinions on American gun control." you endeavour to correct me on it. But I can only assume you took my posts as a personal attack, and think that I'm out to start some kind of fight. So unless you want to actually educate me on what I'm wrong about instead of just telling me that I shouldn't even bother taking an intrest, I'll say no more on[I] that.[/I]
I mean, at least you haven't called me a "faggot" yet, but you also seem to be taking my attempts to lighten the mood a bit as if they're slights aimed directly at you and your opinions. They aren't, but I'm pretty sure you've made your mind up already that I'm apparently just some stuck-up jerk trying to attack your country's culture, or something.
Either way, all I can say is "sorry" in regards to how absolutely furious I've apparently made you. And that this will be the last post you see from me on this subject. It isn't worth earning the ire of people like yourself and honestly, I'm stressed enough as it is without needing to worry about five paragraphs worth of "you're wrong and you should feel bad."
I will, however, say that I don't think my fears regarding American gun culture are "irrational", not when there are people out there who would gladly kill me over things beyond my control.
Take care, I'm leaving this thread far behind.
[QUOTE=Ona;51359145]As I said, I'm not going to continue talking about this with you. All I've managed to do is make you and a a few other people incredibly angry at me to the point of literal name calling, and despite what you might think, this was never my intention.
*excuses and more personal attacks*
Take care, I'm leaving this thread far behind.[/QUOTE]
Can't handle getting caught being wrong? Gotta save face so you can keep acting all smug and superior right? After all, the truth is uncomfortable, and we can't have that. Gotta have all those warm fuzzies and safe spaces.
This is exactly the refusal to engage in discussion that alienates people from your views.
-wrong thread, sorry-
[QUOTE=GunFox;51349709]I get it. It is super frustrating from an outside perspective to understand.
Going back to the topic of context, you have to realize that we have fundamentally different priorities than Australians. We permitted arms, regardless of the dangers they can pose, as a final safeguard against tyranny.
The underlying cultural value here is that we value freedom from government oppression more than we value safety.
Again, I get it. The default response is to SEEK SAFETY. That is the [I]normal[/I] human thing, and it isn't wrong to do so! We just have something that we value somewhat more than safety. This is part of the frustration that you face. You are assuming common ground, that our primary objective is safety, when it isn't actually common ground. It is an understandable assumption.[/QUOTE]
This is probably the most informative post in this entire thread, at least for me anyway.
I think Gunfox is exactly correct in their summation that there is a difference in the mindset of priorities of US citizens to those of other western democracies. What Gunfox talking about here really gets into the heart of the issue of what causes these political differences underneath all of the surface level debates.
The core values and beliefs that we hold lead to different interpretations of a range of different issues, it's why even viewpoints that on the surface have nothing to do with each other, such as foreign policy and abortion rights, can be evenly split down the middle into what seems to be two political or cultural 'tribes'. It goes deeper than Democrats and Republicans, or Liberals and Conservatives.
My rebuttal is more of a semantic point rather than a refutation of the ideas presented.
As I'm sure you are aware, there are people who feel that there are a number of social norms in our society that are just as oppressive as any government can be, you may be so inclined to call such groups of people 'SJWs' or something similar. That's fine. My point is that those people believe that a small government that doesn't rein in such oppressive social norms is just as if not more tyrannical than government oppression. Effectively, they believe in the [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority]Tyranny of the majority[/url].
From what I can see, it would be inaccurate for the distinction that we make to describe core cultural beliefs of our modern world to be 'tyranny versus safety'. Instead it seems like different core cultural groups classify different opposing core values as 'tyranny' depending on which core values they promote as positive.
Instead, what I suggest to be more accurate is the idea that some groups value centralization and globalism of human interests and concerns, i.e. a system of mutual cooperation and 'togetherness' for protection, which is illustrated in such cultural norms such as free trade deals, hate crime laws, worker rights, redistribution of wealth, social justice (as in the original, academic use of the term) and multiculturalism while other groups value decentralization, isolationism and radical independence, i.e. everyone works for themselves and protects themselves so as to form stronger individual 'links' in the 'chain' of society, which is in turn illustrated in cultural norms such as guns rights, moving power from federal to state government, property rights, privatization and libertarianism.
Every group believes that their side is right and the other side is tyrannical.
well ona ran off when challenged like i suspected he would, but i just wanted to point out, alaska is NOT number 1 for firearm homicide in the US, its not even close. In fact, its quite low on the list (2.8 per 100k) Nor does the prevalence of gun ownership correlate, as states like idaho have over 50% of the population own firearms and yet idaho has one of the lowest firearm homicide rates in the country (0.8 per 100k). As I said, lumping suicides under "gun violence" is disingenuous, and that he took issue with the actual defnition of violence and wanted to rationalize suicide as a violent act knowing full well what the implication was, confirms for me he really was trying to twist a narrative when the data didnt fit.
The highest firearm homicide rate in the country is DC, followed by Louisiana. Both states have a large black populace, but for some reason americans are deathly afraid to bring up demographics when talking about violence, which is misguided because the elephant in the room is the [B]vast[/B] majority of firearm homicides in the US are black males killing other black males.
[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;51362129]well ona ran off when challenged like i suspected he would, but i just wanted to point out, alaska is NOT number 1 for firearm homicide in the US, its not even close. In fact, its quite low on the list (2.8 per 100k) Nor does the prevalence of gun ownership correlate, as states like idaho have over 50% of the population own firearms and yet idaho has one of the lowest firearm homicide rates in the country (0.8 per 100k). As I said, lumping suicides under "gun violence" is disingenuous, and that he took issue with the actual defnition of violence and wanted to rationalize suicide as a violent act knowing full well what the implication was, confirms for me he really was trying to twist a narrative when the data didnt fit.
The highest firearm homicide rate in the country is DC, followed by Louisiana. Both states have a large black populace, but for some reason americans are deathly afraid to bring up demographics when talking about violence, which is misguided because the elephant in the room is the [B]vast[/B] majority of firearm homicides in the US are black males killing other black males.[/QUOTE]
Because das wacist.
My problem with just labeling it black on black violence is that while that's true, it misses the reasons for why it's true. It's the old correlation vs causation argument. There's side demographics that are tied to blacks in these areas. They aren't killing each other because they are black. They are killing each other because of gang violence, and culture that developed because of poverty, and actual (not the overused buzzword variety) institutionalized racism dating back centuries.
Dice the demographics instead of just slicing them. Look at just educated blacks, and those earning middle class or better wages, and then compare their crime stats to other races in those niches. Suddenly blacks aren't an order of magnitude more likely to engage in criminal activity. Gee. I wonder why that is. It's almost like extensive poverty, and a repressive culture where law enforcement is to be feared provides more opportunity for crime leading to more criminal activity.
[QUOTE=Zephyrs;51362704]Because das wacist.
My problem with just labeling it black on black violence is that while that's true, it misses the reasons for why it's true. It's the old correlation vs causation argument. There's side demographics that are tied to blacks in these areas. They aren't killing each other because they are black. They are killing each other because of gang violence, and culture that developed because of poverty, and actual (not the overused buzzword variety) institutionalized racism dating back centuries.
Dice the demographics instead of just slicing them. Look at just educated blacks, and those earning middle class or better wages, and then compare their crime stats to other races in those niches. Suddenly blacks aren't an order of magnitude more likely to engage in criminal activity. Gee. I wonder why that is. It's almost like extensive poverty, and a repressive culture where law enforcement is to be feared provides more opportunity for crime leading to more criminal activity.[/QUOTE]
Um dude that's pretty much what everyone brings up when they point out it's black on black violence. I have never heard someone say that the real problem is black on blacks because they're genetically predisposed to shoot each other
[QUOTE=Zyler;51361530]Instead, what I suggest to be more accurate is the idea that some groups value centralization and globalism of human interests and concerns, i.e. a system of mutual cooperation and 'togetherness' for protection, which is illustrated in such cultural norms such as free trade deals, hate crime laws, worker rights, redistribution of wealth, social justice (as in the original, academic use of the term) and multiculturalism while other groups value decentralization, isolationism and radical independence, i.e. everyone works for themselves and protects themselves so as to form stronger individual 'links' in the 'chain' of society, which is in turn illustrated in cultural norms such as guns rights, moving power from federal to state government, property rights, privatization and libertarianism.
Every group believes that their side is right and the other side is tyrannical.[/QUOTE]
That's because both parties [I]are[/I] tyrannical. One way or another, they want to dismantly the rights and freedoms of one group or another, even when they usually don't have any good reason to do so.
One group attacks open discourse and private property while the other attacks bodily autonomy and alternative cultural expression. And all the arguments for these causes basically amount to "because that bothers me". Well, both groups can take their safe spaces and fuck off.
[QUOTE=Goberfish;51363156]Um dude that's pretty much what everyone brings up when they point out it's black on black violence. I have never heard someone say that the real problem is black on blacks because they're genetically predisposed to shoot each other[/QUOTE]
That's because anyone who said that here and didn't back it up with some spectacular evidence would probably get banned. But you go elsewhere and you won't have to look far. And honestly they take it up a notch and say things like "blacks have naturally lower IQs", among other probably racist beliefs.
Zephyrs probably posts elsewhere too and knows what I'm talking about.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.