Gun retailers stop selling guns and ammo to police - Polidicks

[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;39705690]yeah no. America's rate of violent and armed crime has more to do with socioeconomic issues than it does to do with the presence of firearms. Go ahead explain to me why a country like switzerland can have an ACTUAL assault rifle in the home of almost every male of service age, yet next to no firearm homicide, let alone violent crime in general?[/QUOTE] You can find plenty of places in the US with comparable crime rates too, it's just a few shitholes that bring everything down, Chicago for example. I mean take Idaho: [url]http://www.usa.com/idaho-state-crime-and-crime-rate.htm[/url] [url]http://www.isp.idaho.gov/BCI/ucr/crimeinidaho2011.html[/url] Then Switzerland: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Switzerland[/url] [url]http://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/portal/de/index/themen/19/03/03/key/straftaten/haeufigste_delikte.html[/url] I can tell you there are guns EVERYWHERE in Idaho, this is one of those states that allows open carry without a license and passed it's own Firearms Freedom Act. Actual Machineguns aren't all that uncommon either, I know quite a few guys who have everything from full auto ARs to Thompsons and MG42s. By the reasoning I see in these threads all the time, Idaho should be a hellhole like something out of [I]The Quick and the Dead[/I], but it's not.

I feel like no one's ever going to go anywhere in these arguments. More so than in normal FP shit post arguments. I feel like these gun ones are just some of the worst arguments I've read on FP. Whenever anyone "pro gun"(because simply saying you don't blame guns primarily for all violence seems to be like a way to be called "pro gun") posts anything, substantiated by reason or logic(for instance gun registries) you get thrown to the side and your discussion gets called a "pro gun circle jerk" even if it's just dismissing a bad point brought up by a side of the argument. Then the other side of the argument is filled with people who don't want to have an actual argument and post condescendingly with each post making fun of anyone who seeks to have a gun for any reasons, just belittling them and forgoing any sort of traditional argument structure and just hitting home with emotional arguments that are void. I mean, I read this whole damn thread, and many others of the same ilk and this is the same god damn thing that happens in every fucking thread.

not only are people heated, they refuse wholly to listen to anyone elses opinion and just act above the issue, Rusty, kopimi, sobotonik, there's no reason to argue the way you guys are if you give a shit about the issue at any level. At any level. You're just childish, I've seen you guys make snide remarks in place of arguments and you actually seem to act like it's satisfied the argument in any way This doesn't mean the pro gun side of the argument is right about everything, it's just that they're not arguing with snide remarks

[QUOTE=plunger435;39705372]Considering it happens a year after the ban as well it can be seen as related. Do you have any statistics presenting the opposing views, because I noticed I was asked for mine, but no one else presented any after I did. [/QUOTE] Firearms related deaths were decreasing since 91, and only a very small percentage of those murders were done by firearm. It really isn't related at all, there's no indication that the laws did anything other than maybe curbing suicides(by gun) a little.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;39706097]I feel like no one's ever going to go anywhere in these arguments. More so than in normal FP shit post arguments. I feel like these gun ones are just some of the worst arguments I've read on FP. Whenever anyone "pro gun"(because simply saying you don't blame guns primarily for all violence seems to be like a way to be called "pro gun") posts anything, substantiated by reason or logic(for instance gun registries) you get thrown to the side and your discussion gets called a "pro gun circle jerk" even if it's just dismissing a bad point brought up by a side of the argument. Then the other side of the argument is filled with people who don't want to have an actual argument and post condescendingly with each post making fun of anyone who seeks to have a gun for any reasons, just belittling them and forgoing any sort of traditional argument structure and just hitting home with emotional arguments that are void. I mean, I read this whole damn thread, and many others of the same ilk and this is the same god damn thing that happens in every fucking thread.[/QUOTE] Dismissing the "other side of the argument" as people that don't want to have an actual argument is just as condescending and dumb. "Pro Gun" people can be just as snide and ridiculous as any other group.

[QUOTE=rilez;39706479]Dismissing the "other side of the argument" as people that don't want to have an actual argument is just as condescending and dumb. "Pro Gun" people can be just as snide and ridiculous as any other group.[/QUOTE] I agree with this. Ironically, saying that pro gun people have the best arguments and anti-gun people are just wrongfully accusing them of circlejerking is, in itself, a pro-gun circlejerk. There are some good arguments on both sides, and some spectacularly awful arguments on both sides. Pretending your opponent can't think isn't how you convince other people that you're right.

The reason we aren't getting anywhere is because there isn't conclusive evidence to completely demolish the other sides argument yet on gun control.

Tightening or forbidding guns will disarm only people acting legitimately, whoever has bad intent will acquire their guns by whatever means are necessary. If you have any doubt just look up countries where guns are not allowed. "BOPE" (special ops battalion) has already seized AAAs, RPGs and all sort of crap that was being handled by mistrained drug dealers in slums. [url=http://noticias.terra.com.br/brasil/noticias/0,,OI923539-EI5030,00-Ladroes+roubam+bolsa+de+mulher+com+bazuca+no+Rio.html]Hell, there's even a case this woman got mugged with a fucking AT-4![/url]

[QUOTE=rilez;39706479]Dismissing the "other side of the argument" as people that don't want to have an actual argument is just as condescending and dumb. "Pro Gun" people can be just as snide and ridiculous as any other group.[/QUOTE] But Rilez how can you say that when they use such excellent arguments like this. [IMG]http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/8596/imagekmgm.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=rilez;39706479]Dismissing the "other side of the argument" as people that don't want to have an actual argument is just as condescending and dumb. "Pro Gun" people can be just as snide and ridiculous as any other group.[/QUOTE] Of course but just because they can be, doesn't mean they are, as this thread points out.

[QUOTE=plunger435;39707000]But Rilez how can you say that when they use such excellent arguments like this. [/QUOTE] Are you actually fucking serious right now ? i sent you two PMs asking you to check the thread, that was the second one after you didn't reply, it's a joke. [editline]25th February 2013[/editline] jesus christ how even

[QUOTE=Deep;39707105]Are you actually fucking serious right now ? i sent you two PMs asking you to check the thread, that was the second one after you didn't reply, it's a joke. [editline]25th February 2013[/editline] jesus christ how even[/QUOTE] I was in a lecture, calm yourself, and you've been attacking me via PMs for a bit now so it was pretty serious. You also asked me to bring up the nazis in your latest message so, "Hitler was right."

Hitler was a woman

[QUOTE=plunger435;39707189]I was in a lecture, calm yourself, and you've been attacking me via PMs for a bit now so it was pretty serious. You also asked me to bring up the nazis in your latest message so, "Hitler was right."[/QUOTE] I never attacked you through PMs, way to post that completely out of context like i was spamming you or something, there were only two PMs before that post. It doesn't matter really, i'm done here, this thread has gone for too long.

[QUOTE=teh pirate;39707230]Hitler was a woman[/QUOTE] Hitler didnt exist

[QUOTE=plunger435;39707189]I was in a lecture, calm yourself, and you've been attacking me via PMs for a bit now so it was pretty serious. You also asked me to bring up the nazis in your latest message so, "Hitler was right."[/QUOTE]No one gives a shit.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;39695859]Ok so these agencies will just buy from other countries causing more Americans to be put out of work Makes sense that the industry that profits off paranoia would be absolutely nuts itself[/QUOTE] not like there's much of a long-term market in states that want to ban private sales anyway if you can afford to make a statement that protects your industry, by all means go for it. The kind of people that buy from cheaperthandirt are people that will love this shit anyways, it's a good marketing move. [QUOTE=EnlightenDead;39707253]Hitler didnt exist[/QUOTE] Hitler was an objectively meaningless collection of atoms, and by labeling him we're creating an existential grid in which evil exists. Therefore, we are all Hitler.

[QUOTE=Sector 7;39707275]not like there's much of a long-term market in states that want to ban private sales anyway if you can afford to make a statement that protects your industry, by all means go for it. The kind of people that buy from cheaperthandirt are people that will love this shit anyways, it's a good marketing move. Hitler was an objectively meaningless collections of atoms, and by labeling him we're creating an existential grid in which evil exists. Therefore, we are all Hitler.[/QUOTE] Pretty much this, if the sale of privately owned guns are completely banned they'll go out of business anyways so why not try to make a statement about it.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39706747]The reason we aren't getting anywhere is because there isn't conclusive evidence to completely demolish the other sides argument yet on gun control.[/QUOTE] in your case actually i think it's because you're trying to push your politics. i don't think i've seen a gun-thread with you in it where you haven't suggested the state taking control of gun manufacture

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;39707419]in your case actually i think it's because you're trying to push your politics. i don't think i've seen a gun-thread with you in it where you haven't suggested the state taking control of gun manufacture[/QUOTE] Right, but the other side is guilty of the same thing, so it's hardly fair to criticize me for that.

Can we simply agree were all guilty of trying to push our own concepts on how things should be done?

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;39707541]Can we simply agree were all guilty of trying to push our own concepts on how things should be done?[/QUOTE] No because if someone else's idea is clearly better it's fucking stupid if I stick to my existing viewpoint [editline]24th February 2013[/editline] That's you know an argument Find out what's right

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;39707541]Can we simply agree were all guilty of trying to push our own concepts on how things should be done?[/QUOTE] That's what everyone has been doing for months. Some peoples views changed. Hopefully for the better. Didn't this all start when somebody shot up a school or something?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39701950]The right to bear arms was originally intended for the days when central government didn't really exist. America back then (and for many decades afterwards) had an incredibly weak central government that could barely keep things together. A standing army was an impossibility back then, meaning that for the most part, law, order, and military defense was basically left up to the individual because police forces, standing professional armies, taxation, (all the hallmarks of a modern state) simply didn't exist. America has a fairly strong central government with wide ranging powers now, and a lot of the original purposes that firearm ownership was intended for simply do not exist on the same scale anymore (hunting and militias being two big examples). That's why a lot of people don't give two shits about the second amendment or own firearms, it doesn't really apply to them anymore.[/QUOTE] this whole "the second amendment is old and doesn't apply anymore and is only endangering people now" bullshit has gone on long enough The right to remain silent is old The right to free speech is old And using logic similar to yours the right to remain silent doesn't apply anymore because these days we need people to be cooperative in order for police to solve crimes, and people not talking only leads to time being wasted in situations where every moment counts Free speech is outdated because nowadays people die in the Middle East because a few dumbasses in a western country said something bad about the Quran. The right to peaceful protest is outdated for the same reason because people die in the Middle East because a few dumbasses in a western country BURNED the Quran The right to bear arms is outdated because occasionally someone who hasn't been kept in check bursts out in a public area and shoots everybody Freedom of religion is old and outdated because we now know science is the answer to everything and Atheism is clearly the most logical belief system in the world and believing in some deity is dumb (by facepunch standards) In addition there are religious extremists all around the world that have caused the worst kind of evil Therefore we should remove all these rights and others from all people because they don't apply anymore and people are only abusing them now OH WAIT A SECOND [editline]24th February 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;39707560]That's what everyone has been doing for months. Some peoples views changed. Hopefully for the better. Didn't this all start when somebody shot up a school or something?[/QUOTE] It also started when people like you suggested you punish everyone for the actions of a few

[QUOTE=BFG9000;39707582]this whole "the second amendment is old and doesn't apply anymore and is only endangering people now" bullshit has gone on long enough The right to remain silent is old The right to free speech is old And using logic similar to yours the right to remain silent doesn't apply anymore because these days we need people to be cooperative in order for police to solve crimes, and people not talking only leads to time being wasted in situations where every moment counts Free speech is outdated because nowadays people die in the Middle East because a few dumbasses in a western country said something bad about the Quran. The right to peaceful protest is outdated for the same reason because people die in the Middle East because a few dumbasses in a western country BURNED the Quran The right to bear arms is outdated because occasionally someone who hasn't been kept in check bursts out in a public area and shoots everybody Freedom of religion is old and outdated because we now know science is the answer to everything and Atheism is clearly the most logical belief system in the world and believing in some deity is dumb (by facepunch standards) In addition there are religious extremists all around the world that have caused the worst kind of evil Therefore we should remove all these rights and others from all people because they don't apply anymore and people are only abusing them now OH WAIT A SECOND [/quote] I'll let you off with the huge strawman that doesn't add maturity or extra content to the argument. However, the point I was making, is that the original purpose, genuinely does not happen anymore. Free speech still actually happens, as does the right to remain silent. The reason people don't give a shit anymore (especially non-Americans) is because it [i]genuinely does not apply to them any longer.[/i] Why? [i]Because the vast majority of people do not own or handle firearms on such a regular basis as they did a century or two ago[/i]. Firearms owners take pride in their hobby, and collect guns that most people don't even know exist beyond general shape and size. [quote]It also started when people like you suggested you punish everyone for the actions of a few[/QUOTE] It depends on how many actually use them. If it increases net utility, it's justified.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39707683]I'll let you off with the huge strawman that doesn't add maturity or extra content to the argument. However, the point I was making, is that the original purpose, genuinely does not happen anymore. Free speech still actually happens, as does the right to remain silent. The reason people don't give a shit anymore (especially non-Americans) is because it [i]genuinely does not apply to them any longer.[/i] Why? [i]Because the vast majority of people do not own or handle firearms on such a regular basis as they did a century or two ago[/i]. Firearms owners take pride in their hobby, and collect guns that most people don't even know exist beyond general shape and size. It depends on how many actually use them. If it increases net utility, it's justified.[/QUOTE] but how the hell do you determine that utility? Utilitarianism is a bad concept in general but I'll make allowances for it here Who are you to decide whether it increases net utility? You don't know how many people you'll piss off, what future events you could set into motion, and disarmament doesn't really increase utility considering it doesnt reduce crime so in a nutshell, there's no utility whatsoever in this and it is not justified [editline]24th February 2013[/editline] I might also add that there are quite a bit of non americans who are gun enthusiasts

[QUOTE=BFG9000;39707815]but how the hell do you determine that utility? Utilitarianism is a bad concept in general but I'll make allowances for it here Who are you to decide whether it increases net utility?[/quote] Well the intention of utilitarianism is to create laws that achieve the greatest happiness for the most people. If gun control really was awful, everybody would be against it. The fact that at least half the population don't think its awful (and indirectly support it) says something. [quote]You don't know how many people you'll piss off, what future events you could set into motion, and disarmament doesn't really increase utility considering it doesnt reduce crime[/quote] These are all big assumptions that don't really work. You kinda know how many you will piss off from the raw numbers of people voting against these policies. You can't predict the future well, so "future events" argument is bollocks. Finally, utility =/= crime. [quote]so in a nutshell, there's no utility whatsoever in this and it is not justified[/QUOTE] You didn't really make an argument, more a ramble of ad hoc statements. Plus you forgot to tackle the first bunch of points I made in that post. [QUOTE=BFG9000;39707815]I might also add that there are quite a bit of non americans who are gun enthusiasts[/QUOTE] Yes, but they make up a tiny minority and are often looked on by the general population as eccentric at best.

[QUOTE=BFG9000;39707815] Who are you to decide whether it increases net utility? You don't know how many people you'll piss off, what future events you could set into motion, and disarmament doesn't really increase utility considering it doesnt reduce crime so in a nutshell, there's no utility whatsoever in this and it is not justified [/QUOTE] Yeah I mean how do you make those number predictions and stuffs man, like statistics and economics let's just ignore those. Analytical modeling? Pfft, get the fuck outta here with your accurate predictions that all major policies are based on. so in a nutshell, you're wrong simply because I say you are

[QUOTE=rilez;39702847]If you take personal offense to that, that's your problem.[/QUOTE] if you said it it's your problem too. you can't just say something offensive and magically smokescreen it by essentially saying "well you're bitch enough to get upset about something i said, deal with it" [editline]24th February 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=rilez;39706479]Dismissing the "other side of the argument" as people that don't want to have an actual argument is just as condescending and dumb.[/QUOTE] yeah but you're actually in that situation right now. as the quote above this one clearly demonstrates. i think it's just dumb to do something, bring it up as if you didn't do it, then finish with ad hominem. i think just those two quotes right by each other bring up serious questions as to why you're a moderator in the first place.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39707866]Well the intention of utilitarianism is to create laws that achieve the greatest happiness for the most people. If gun control really was awful, everybody would be against it. The fact that at least half the population don't think its awful (and indirectly support it) says something. [/QUOTE] But the other half thinks it is [quote]These are all big assumptions that don't really work. You kinda know how many you will piss off from the raw numbers of people voting against these policies. [/quote] Well that's swell! lets decide how many people this would affect in a negative way based solely on the 30% of people who actually come to polls! [quote] You didn't really make an argument, more a ramble of ad hoc statements. Plus you forgot to tackle the first bunch of points I made in that post. [/quote] isn't this what you do half the time? you should go back to that other thread then and address the points that people made that you never addressed but no you don't have to, because I'm not holding it against you [quote]Yes, but they make up a tiny minority and are often looked on by the general population as eccentric at best. [/quote] That's a shame.