US House of Representatives passes bill loosening gun restrictions - Polidicks

[QUOTE=proboardslol;52955349]Do you need guns?[/QUOTE] We don't ban things based on whether they're needed or not.

[QUOTE=PaChIrA;52955347]You legit said you want to ban cars once self driving becomes a thing?[/QUOTE] Yes, it would be stupid not to. Driving a car is the biggest risk every single person takes every day, and if there were a safer alternative, it would be selfish and immoral to put others in danger because of a hobby. [editline]7th December 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Grenadiac;52955354]We don't ban things based on whether they're needed or not.[/QUOTE] Ok well then what if collecting uranium was my hobby [editline]7th December 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Zombinie;52955350]Proboards if you are not comfortable with other people enjoying freedoms that you don't personally use, then America is not the place for you.[/QUOTE] This is a strawman. It is a dishonest argument and you are a dishonest person for using it. You are intentionally obfuscating the debate to take focus away from guns and onto my own character.

unitednuclear.com can supply your Uranium hobby, welcome to America

[QUOTE=proboardslol;52955355] Ok well then what if collecting uranium was my hobby [/QUOTE] Then go ahead and collect uranium, dude

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;52955367]unitednuclear.com can supply your Uranium hobby, welcome to America[/QUOTE] Ok my hobby is collecting 90% enriched uranium

[QUOTE=proboardslol;52955355] This is a strawman. It is a dishonest argument and you are a dishonest person for using it. You are intentionally obfuscating the debate to take focus away from guns and onto my own character.[/QUOTE] [quote]Ok well then what if collecting uranium was my hobby[/quote] And this isn't obfuscating the argument? [quote]Yes, it would be stupid not to. Driving a car is the biggest risk every single person takes every day, and if there were a safer alternative, it would be selfish and immoral to put others in danger because of a hobby.[/quote] Soo.. you want a nanny state? You're really an obtuse person

[QUOTE=Zombinie;52955371]Then go ahead and collect uranium, just don't go nuking people.[/QUOTE] If you seriously believe that an individual should be able to own weapons grade uranium then you are too far into the gun industry's lobbying effort and can't be saved [editline]7th December 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=PaChIrA;52955375]And this isn't obfuscating the argument? [/quote] No because I'm comparing two weapons here. Weapons-grade uranium which has a high capacity to kill people, and weapons which have a high capacity to kill people. [quote]Soo.. you want a nanny state? You're really an obtuse person[/QUOTE] This is a strawman and it is a dishonest argument. You are a dishonest person for using it.

[QUOTE=proboardslol;52955377]This is a strawman and it is a dishonest argument. You are a dishonest person for using it.[/QUOTE] What the hell kind of arguing tactic is this? Am I missing something here? What the fuck is going on here?

[QUOTE=proboardslol;52955355] This is a strawman. It is a dishonest argument and you are a dishonest person for using it. You are intentionally obfuscating the debate to take focus away from guns and onto my own character.[/QUOTE] Not really, I am trying to point out how silly your line of reasoning is. It seems to me that you think that anything that can be used to do harm or can cause harm on accident should be done away with just to save lives. If that's the case, how do you feel about swimming pools? About ten people die each day in the US due to swimming, and it's not like anyone NEEDS a swimming pool, so by your logic shouldn't they be banned? [QUOTE=proboardslol;52955377] No because I'm comparing two weapons here. Weapons-grade uranium which has a high capacity to kill people, and weapons which have a high capacity to kill people. [/QUOTE] If you think you can just turn weapons grade uranium into a nuclear weapon willy-nilly you clearly don't know what you are talking about.

[QUOTE=proboardslol;52955355]Ok well then what if collecting uranium was my hobby[/QUOTE] You can actually do this if you would like. [QUOTE=proboardslol;52955355]This is a strawman. It is a dishonest argument and you are a dishonest person for using it. You are intentionally obfuscating the debate to take focus away from guns and onto my own character.[/QUOTE] It's one of the core values of what America stands for. You have the flag as your avatar, so you should have an understanding of what it symbolizes. Your logic also speaks volumes more toward your character than anything Zombinie said. [editline]7th December 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=proboardslol;52955372]Ok my hobby is collecting 90% enriched uranium[/QUOTE] My new hobby is moving goal posts.

[QUOTE=proboardslol;52955235]"My hobby is more important than your personal safety"[/QUOTE] Imagine if someone was telling you that because you enjoy having a beer on the weekend, you're responsible for all the people killed by drunk drivers. Imagine if they tried to paint any opposition to full-on Prohibition as 'my hobby is more important than your personal safety'. Seems a little irrational, unfair, and condescending, doesn't it?

[QUOTE=proboardslol;52955349]Do you need guns?[/QUOTE] Do you need anything more than air, water, and food? We could solve 100% of all crime right now by putting everyone into 8 by 10 foot boxes and having robots serve them the absolute necessities. How about other things less drastic. We should totally get a rid of the 4th and 5th amendments. Why worry about your privacy when people are dying in the streets because the police don't have enough probable cause for a search warrant on a drug dealer's house. It would totally solve an overwhelming majority of our crime if the police didn't have to worry about if they can or cannot search something. And for the 5th amendment, it should totally be allowed that the police could compel you to tell them any crimes you've committed. That would solve a lot of crimes too. Why should you hide your crimes from the police? What do you have to hide or worry about?

I'm not going to keep entertaining nutty delusions lmao. The last person I just quit on was Rusty, but I'm quitting on you. Good luck creating your bubble wrap world, I'm not going to help.

[QUOTE=catbarf;52955393]Imagine if someone was telling you that because you enjoy having a beer on the weekend, you're responsible for all the people killed by drunk drivers. Imagine if they tried to paint any opposition to full-on Prohibition as 'my hobby is more important than your personal safety'. Seems a little irrational, unfair, and condescending, doesn't it?[/QUOTE] They actually did that during Prohibition itself. This country definitely has been down this road before. Because alcohol is definitely something people don't need. And we can all see how effective Prohibition was. And how effective the current drug war is.

How the hell is me saying you want a nanny state "a dishonest strawman"? It's legit what you want. You want to ban guns because people can get killed by them, and you want to ban cars because people can get killed by them. What the hell else does a nanny state do? You are deliberately being obtuse to further your argument, how is that not a "strawman"?

[QUOTE=Zombinie;52955384]Not really, I am trying to point out how silly your line of reasoning is. It seems to me that you think that anything that can be used to do harm or can cause harm on accident should be done away with just to save lives.[/quote] You are incorrect. I believe that things with a high capacity to kill or cause damage ought to be banned. Drivers have a high capacity to kill, and so when self driving cars take off, it should be illegal to manually drive a car (except for some circumstances) just as it is illegal to drive your car on a sidewalk. [quote]If that's the case, how do you feel about swimming pools? About ten people die each day in the US due to swimming, and it's not like anyone NEEDS a swimming pool, so by your logic shouldn't they be banned?[/quote] This is not a high capacity for death. Besides this, we mandate lifeguards be at swimming pools for this reason. [quote]If you think you can just turn weapons grade uranium into a nuclear weapon willy-nilly you clearly don't know what you are talking about.[/QUOTE] I know how nuclear weapons work. Even without the capability to produce a weapon, I can use the fuel for bad purposes. I could sell it to a terrorist group or a state actor. We invade countries on the possibility that they may be making weapons-grade uranium, and you think it would be appropriate for an individual to own?

[QUOTE=proboardslol;52955349]Do you need guns?[/QUOTE] Hi. My grandmother lives in bumfuck nowhere Virginia, an hour or so away from Richmond... if that's at all relevant to you. She supports herself since my grandfather died by renting out bits of her property to farmers. There's a large wild pig problem that the local government doesn't have the resources to deal with, and likely never will. I'm not sure if you're aware, but hogs will destroy a field, easily, and completely write off these farmers livelihood if not kept in check. One and a half billion dollars a year or so in damages to agriculture. Now, I reckon you could scare them away without a firearm. Except hogs are too dumb to scare, and double that when you're measuring how mean they are. They're aggressive, and will easily cause grievous harm to you. So, my family and those of these farmers go out and shoot these hogs to keep them from wrecking the main income of farmers with incredibly high overhead invested in these fields and homes. It's literally the best and safest way to keep them in check. If you drive to her county, and try to convince these gentleman and their families that they don't need guns because a kid in college said they're too dangerous to have around, you're going to get laughed all the way back up the road. This is on the East Coast, a short drive from the nations capital, where boar aren't as big or as widespread of a problem as they are the farther west you go. The problem gets even worse when you move west where things are even more sparse and there's more area for pigs to den up in. That's just counting boar, even. Add in lynx, coyote, bears, animals that go after very expensive livestock, that number only goes up. I grew up and work with a ton of people who are dirt-poor who knock off a HUGE cost in groceries by filling the freezer with venison, turkey, duck, whatever. So, yeah. There are a ton, an absolutely massive amount of people in this country who need firearms and whos livelihoods are saved or greatly enhanced by owning them so they can remain self-sufficient members of society, all of whom aren't going to take kindly to the notion that them owning firearms is somehow causing society great harm- for good reason, because the idea is fundamentally flawed.

I'm not really going to get into my position on gun control in this thread, but i will say, there's one argument i've never understood from completely anti-gun folks - that being the "you can buy guns in walmart!" thing. I dunno if there's some walmart somewhere that will sell you an AR15 over the counter or something, but the ones i've been to just have hunting rifles and shotguns. Are there really people under the impression that you could ever remove those sorts of firearms from circulation in the US?

The 'do you need guns' argument is fundamentally tied to the rhetorical 'why can't I have a nuke???' argument because the answer is that there are good reasons for people to need, want, or otherwise justify the ownership of guns that don't apply to hyperbolic analogies. The average police response time in the US is over thirty minutes, and police have no obligation to guarantee your safety. There are people who need to hunt for animal population control, and people who live way out in the boonies and can't count on the police or anyone if a bear- let alone a violent criminal- attacks them. There damn well is more of a need for a gun than something like a nuclear weapon. And even then, not all guns are equal. Since 1934, weapons deemed unsuitable for legitimate uses- concealable rifles, sawn-off shotguns, machine guns- have been heavily regulated. Those that are useful for hunting, for sport, for personal defense, and for enacting the original purpose of the 2nd Amendment (a well-regulated militia) are the ones that are made available to law-abiding citizens.

[QUOTE=PaChIrA;52955406]How the hell is me saying you want a nanny state "a dishonest strawman"? It's legit what you want. You want to ban guns because people can get killed by them, and you want to ban cars because people can get killed by them. What the hell else does a nanny state do? You are deliberately being obtuse to further your argument, how is that not a "strawman"?[/QUOTE] Despite how it appears you think the world works, the world does not work in black and whites. We are not given the choice between banning nothing and banning everything. I want guns banned. I don't want [B]any[/B] drugs banned, I don't even want cigarettes banned. I would be okay with lowering the drinking age to 18, but I'm over 21 so I'd be fine if it stayed where it is anyways. I think that it's silly that New York bans selling large sodas. But we're not talking about any of those things. We're not talking about the principle of banning things, we should be talking about the merits and pitfalls of banning guns and guns only. However you and others like you continue to represent my argument as black and white as you see the world when in fact, this is a strawman. It is a dishonest argument, and you are a dishonest person for using it.

[QUOTE=proboardslol;52955422]We are not given the choice between banning nothing and banning everything. I want guns banned. I don't want [B]any[/B] drugs banned, I don't even want cigarettes banned.[/QUOTE] This is called 'inconsistent reasoning'. Don't appeal to a body count if you're not going to apply it consistently. If your reasons for wanting to ban guns selectively aren't applied to demonstrably greater sources of societal harm, don't pretend that there's some rational calculus behind it.

[QUOTE=catbarf;52955420]The 'do you need guns' argument is fundamentally tied to the rhetorical 'why can't I have a nuke???' argument because the answer is that there are good reasons for people to need, want, or otherwise justify the ownership of guns that don't apply to hyperbolic analogies. The average police response time in the US is over thirty minutes, and police have no obligation to guarantee your safety. There are people who need to hunt for animal population control, and people who live way out in the boonies and can't count on the police or anyone if a bear- let alone a violent criminal- attacks them. There damn well is more of a need for a gun than something like a nuclear weapon. And even then, not all guns are equal. Since 1934, weapons deemed unsuitable for legitimate uses- concealable rifles, sawn-off shotguns, machine guns- have been heavily regulated. Those that are useful for hunting, for sport, for personal defense, and for enacting the original purpose of the 2nd Amendment (a well-regulated militia) are the ones that are made available to law-abiding citizens.[/QUOTE] Which is why I think that weapons should be limited to non semi-automatic only. You can defend yourself with a shotgun. Hell, I don't even think I see a reason why sawed-off shotguns should be illegal.

Anyone who asks "do you need guns," or any equivalent type of question, fundamentally misunderstands how rights work. The automatic position is that we should maximize freedom, unless the risk far outweighs the benefit. So unless you can first establish that banning guns would have a strong and measurably positive effect, then it doesn't even matter whether I need or want guns. I've yet to see any strong argument like that yet. Once you've done that. Once you've established that banning guns would have a strong and measurably positive effect on society, then we can discuss how the needs and wants of gun owners measures up against those negative effects.

[QUOTE=proboardslol;52955422]Despite how it appears you think the world works, the world does not work in black and whites. We are not given the choice between banning nothing and banning everything. I want guns banned. I don't want [B]any[/B] drugs banned, I don't even want cigarettes banned. I would be okay with lowering the drinking age to 18, but I'm over 21 so I'd be fine if it stayed where it is anyways. I think that it's silly that New York bans selling large sodas. But we're not talking about any of those things. We're not talking about the principle of banning things, we should be talking about the merits and pitfalls of banning guns and guns only. However you and others like you continue to represent my argument as black and white as you see the world when in fact, this is a strawman. It is a dishonest argument, and you are a dishonest person for using it.[/QUOTE] Despite how it appears you think the world works, the world does not work in black and whites. Not everybody who owns a gun is some sort of crazed killer that you seem to think they are. For every psychopath with a gun there is a 100 more responsible gun owners who haven't done a single crime in their life. You're the truly dishonest person for trying to shut other people up by saying they're dishonest.

[QUOTE=proboardslol;52955426]Which is why I think that weapons should be limited to non semi-automatic only. You can defend yourself with a shotgun. Hell, I don't even think I see a reason why sawed-off shotguns should be illegal.[/QUOTE] Feel free to explain why police have universally abandoned six-shot revolvers in favor of modern semi-automatics for ordinary patrol cops if archaic technologies are equally viable for self-defense. I prefer to defend myself with the most effective means available.

[QUOTE=catbarf;52955424]This is called 'inconsistent reasoning'. Don't appeal to a body count if you're not going to apply it consistently. If your reasons for wanting to ban guns selectively aren't applied to demonstrably greater sources of societal harm, don't pretend that there's some rational calculus behind it.[/QUOTE] Drugs and cigarettes kill yourself. True, cigarettes can kill others with second hand smoke, but that's why it is illegal to smoke indoors in public. We've regulated these dangers down because we deemed them too great. Guns are not like this. Guns kill others, with a much higher incidence than drugs can be used to kill others. Drugs are not tools for killing. Drugs and guns are not in the same category.

I get the pro gun side, but how come pro gun politicians never address mental health issues in the states? Like if GOP care about gun owners, why not put more funds in helping the ill rather than cutting support?

[QUOTE=catbarf;52955433]Feel free to explain why police have universally abandoned six-shot revolvers in favor of modern semi-automatics for ordinary patrol cops if archaic technologies are equally viable for self-defense. I prefer to defend myself with the most effective means available.[/QUOTE] Cops should have the privilege to use whatever guns they want. That's what cops are for. I would never suggest that a soldier be limited in the weapons they can use.

[QUOTE=GrizzlyBear;52955436]I get the pro gun side, but how come pro gun politicians never address mental health issues in the states?[/QUOTE] likely because the venn diagram of 'vocally pro-gun' politician and 'fuck healthcare and fuck you' politician is nearly a circle in the US, unfortunately

[QUOTE=PaChIrA;52955431]Despite how it appears you think the world works, the world does not work in black and whites. Not everybody who owns a gun is some sort of crazed killer that you seem to think they are. For every psychopath with a gun there is a 100 more responsible gun owners who haven't done a single crime in their life. You're the truly dishonest person for trying to shut other people up by saying they're dishonest.[/QUOTE] You are misrepresenting my argument. I did not say that all gun owners are killers. I said that the ability of a law abiding citizen to buy a gun legally gives a criminal an easier channel to get a gun. This is a strawman. It is a dishonest argument and you are a dishonest person for using it [editline]7th December 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=GrizzlyBear;52955436]I get the pro gun side, but how come pro gun politicians never address mental health issues in the states? Like if GOP care about gun owners, why not put more funds in helping the ill rather than cutting support?[/QUOTE] Because conservatives don't care if you live or die they just want money. They bring up mental health because their donors in the gun lobby want them to and then they promptly forget to actually provide any kind of support for mental health.