US House of Representatives passes bill loosening gun restrictions - Polidicks

[QUOTE=proboardslol;52955439]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] Why should I as a citizen not be able to defend myself in the most effective manner possible just because of what some other asshole might do? An AR-15 is the prime choice for home defense, and in contrast to shotguns which you claimed were fine for home defense, .223 will not over-penetrate as much as a 12g slug which reduces the chance of innocent bystanders getting caught in crossfire.

[QUOTE=proboardslol;52955443]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[/QUOTE] So why ban the ability of the law abiding citizen to get a gun because of what a criminal does?

[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.[/quote] And yet alcohol which serves no useful purpose kills over double the amount of guns. People are calling you out because you can't actually give a reason to ban guns and not other things which have a higher mortality rate. [QUOTE=proboardslol;52955422] 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] Nah, you brought up the reason for banning guns being public safety. You either address the public safety concerns or drop it.

[QUOTE=proboardslol;52955443]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. [B]This is a strawman. It is a dishonest argument and you are a dishonest person for using it[/B] [/QUOTE] You keep using these words, but I don't think you quite understand what it is when you used the classic nuke strawman yourself

[QUOTE=proboardslol;52955434]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.[/QUOTE] Why are you essentially saying 88,000 deaths to alcohol per year don't matter because they're effectively suicide? Do we get to downplay the significance of guns by pointing out that 'only' 1/3 of deaths from firearms are homicide? [QUOTE=proboardslol;52955439]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] What is a beat cop going to run into that I'm not? Why does he require a semi-automatic handgun to protect himself, but I can get by just fine with something manually-operated? Why do you trust cops to use weapons that you are saying aren't really necessary for self-defense, when police officers have a higher rate of felony convictions than licensed concealed carriers?

[QUOTE=Zombinie;52955448]Why should I as a citizen not be able to defend myself in the most effective manner possible just because of what some other asshole might do? An AR-15 is the prime choice for home defense, and in contrast to shotguns which you claimed were fine for home defense, .223 will not over-penetrate as much as a 12g slug which reduces the chance of innocent bystanders getting caught in crossfire.[/QUOTE] Because your ability to buy a gun gives a channel by which criminals can more effectively get access to guns. The net effect is a less safe society

Guns massively increase the efficiency with which a person who intends harm can kill people ([URL="https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm"]the claim somebody made that knives kill more people than guns in the US is outright false. The majority of homicides in the US involve firearms.[/URL]). Armed criminals represent a significant threat to public safety, which would not be present if we disarmed the public. It's a complicated issue, with many people in rural areas having a substantial argument that they require firearms for subsistence or their livelyhood, and of course the very idea of disarming the entire US is probably not feasible. But it's hard to argue that people who own guns for hobbies or self-defense (because civilian shoot-outs is a fantastic way to deal with crime) or overthrowing the US government (lmao), balance out the risks involved with wide distribution of firearms.

[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] it amazes me that proboardslol is arguing all of this and yet has the balls to tell someone else that they think in black and white terms you can't get more black and white than wanting to ban guns, cars, and yet somehow still managing to want to legalize all drugs. Because all drugs are the same right??? So its ok to do amphetamines and speedball, but we can't drive cars or own guns because g-g-g-gosh that's too dangerous

[QUOTE=proboardslol;52955439]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] So you'd be okay if the cops rolled around with Howitzers but not with civilians using semi-auto's? :thinking:

[QUOTE=proboardslol;52955462]Because your ability to buy a gun gives a channel by which criminals can more effectively get access to guns. The net effect is a less safe society[/QUOTE] But the law abiding citizen can get the same guns (except for the black market stuff crims get of course) so it would balance out with them defending themselves.

[QUOTE=Pigbear;52955455]You keep using these words, but I don't think you quite understand what it is when you used the classic nuke strawman yourself[/QUOTE] The nuke example would not be a strawman. It would be a slippery slope fallacy at best, but it depends on whether or not weapons grade uranium has the capacity for high levels of destruction in an individual's hands. It is not a strawman because it is not a misrepresentation of the opponent's argument. It is not a misrepresentation of the opponent's argument because they literally said it would be okay by them for me to own nuclear material

[QUOTE=proboardslol;52955474]The nuke example would not be a strawman. It would be a slippery slope fallacy at best, but it depends on whether or not weapons grade uranium has the capacity for high levels of destruction in an individual's hands. It is not a strawman because it is not a misrepresentation of the opponent's argument. It is not a misrepresentation of the opponent's argument because they literally said it would be okay by them for me to own nuclear material[/QUOTE] Ok what does this have to do with civilian ownership of firearms?

[QUOTE=proboardslol;52955462]Because your ability to buy a gun gives a channel by which criminals can more effectively get access to guns. The net effect is a less safe society[/QUOTE] Your ability to buy alcohol gives criminals the ability to drive under the influence and kill just as many people as guns are used for homicide. And that's not counting the amount of people killed because someone under the influence did something else stupid.

[QUOTE=catbarf;52955456]Why are you essentially saying 88,000 deaths to alcohol per year don't matter because they're effectively suicide? Do we get to downplay the significance of guns by pointing out that 'only' 1/3 of deaths from firearms are homicide?[/quote] In the United States, we have the freedom to harm ourselves any way we want. However, when our freedom has the capacity to harm others, those freedoms are curtailed. You cannot smoke in bars. [quote]What is a beat cop going to run into that I'm not? Why does he require a semi-automatic handgun to protect himself, but I can get by just fine with something manually-operated? Why do you trust cops to use weapons that you are saying aren't really necessary for self-defense, when police officers have a higher rate of felony convictions than licensed concealed carriers?[/QUOTE] Training police is a different discussion entirely. The United States is bad at policing, and so this is another thing we need to address. However, the system should be that police are the ones trustworthy enough to handle guns.

[QUOTE=Derpmeifter;52955416]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?[/QUOTE] Some stores did used to sell low-end AR-15s at the hunting section, but after Sandy Hook, they took all of their scary rifles down and now they sell cheap shotguns and .22s.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;52955477]Ok what does this have to do with civilian ownership of firearms?[/QUOTE] Could you please rephrase

[QUOTE=proboardslol;52955481]In the United States, we have the freedom to harm ourselves any way we want. However, when our freedom has the capacity to harm others, those freedoms are curtailed. You cannot smoke in bars.[/QUOTE] I feel like a bunch of kids being pancaked by a drunk driver slamming into another car with a family in it falls under "capacity to harm others".

[QUOTE=Cliff2;52955480]Your ability to buy alcohol gives criminals the ability to drive under the influence and kill just as many people as guns are used for homicide. And that's not counting the amount of people killed because someone under the influence did something else stupid.[/QUOTE] Which is why those with a history of DUI should have their licenses taken away, and why I also said that cars should be 100% self driving eventually

[QUOTE=proboardslol;52955483]Could you please rephrase[/QUOTE] Unless you have access to a Davy Crockett, Nukes arent firearms.

[QUOTE=proboardslol;52955489]Which is why those with a history of DUI should have their licenses taken away, and why I also said that cars should be 100% self driving eventually[/QUOTE] Cars aren't the only way drunk people kill others.

its the same damn argument everytime statists don't want public safety they want your rights they'll blabber on to the moon about this thing and that thing but by the end of it, you having guns gets in the way of taking away your rights. whether its because you enjoy the right to guns and they dont use it, or they think the state can fix everything for them, i don't know but what i do know is that they wont be happy until they've taken away everything, every bit of freedom and free will that we have but back on topic, i hope this bill passes it wont though, we cant have any positive gun legislation ever which is why we have arguments like this

[QUOTE=remnar;52955512]its the same damn argument everytime statists don't want public safety they want your rights they'll blabber on to the moon about this thing and that thing but by the end of it, you having guns gets in the way of taking away your rights. whether its because you enjoy the right to guns and they dont use it, or they think the state can fix everything for them, i don't know but what i do know is that they wont be happy until they've taken away everything, every bit of freedom and free will that we have but back on topic, i hope this bill passes it wont though, we cant have any positive gun legislation ever which is why we have arguments like this[/QUOTE] This argument doesn't help. All it does is make all gun owners look like crazy conspiracy theorists who think everyone is out to get them. Both sides are interested in protecting people, we just disagree on the better method of doing so.

[QUOTE=remnar;52955512]its the same damn argument everytime statists don't want public safety they want your rights they'll blabber on to the moon about this thing and that thing but by the end of it, you having guns gets in the way of taking away your rights. whether its because you enjoy the right to guns and they dont use it, or they think the state can fix everything for them, i don't know but what i do know is that they wont be happy until they've taken away everything, every bit of freedom and free will that we have but back on topic, i hope this bill passes it wont though, we cant have any positive gun legislation ever which is why we have arguments like this[/QUOTE]woah

[QUOTE=proboardslol;52955434]Drugs and cigarettes kill yourself[/QUOTE] Hard drugs have devastated entire cities lol. There's literally an epidemic of opioid abuse sweeping the country, from small towns to major cities.

I don't see how to reconcile the two points of views in this thread, one side wants to live in a world of bubblewrap, drowning in government regulation. The other side is OK with the dangers that come with giving freedoms to others. I am not sure it is possible to convince someone as paranoid as proboards that freedom has an intrinsic value that outweighs the chance of harm to innocents.

[QUOTE=proboardslol;52955462]Because your ability to buy a gun gives a channel by which criminals can more effectively get access to guns. The net effect is a less safe society[/QUOTE] Guns are used about (at the most conservative number, even, there are numbers that are MUCH higher than this depending on who you talk to, but I'll play ball) 67,000 times a year defensively, though that isn't necessarily bad guys shot. Firearm related deaths happen ~34,000 times a year. (this number includes those killed in defensive uses) 60% of that number are suicides. Around 21,000 a year. I think the official number for firearms related homicides is at about 11,000 or so, a decent chunk of which is gang-on-gang violence in urban areas. So defensive gun use by law abiding citizens outnumbers people who are using firearms to kill others by a not insignificant amount (unless you want to count people murdered vs. people killed in defense for some strange reason) and I'm not sure it's honest to say they're a net negative when it comes to me having to worry about someone coming after me with a gun vs. me using one to protect myself.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;52955530]Hard drugs have destroyed entire cities lol.[/QUOTE] Pretty much, there's well-known negative society-level effects of guns, smoking, drinking, drugs, etc.. The point really is to find a reasonable point to deal with these things that don't infringe on personal liberty too hard. For tobacco and drinking, we have certain restrictions and tax them pretty nicely. Even if pot is legalized, it'd likely be taxed and banned for youth and while driving. Etc..

[QUOTE=Zombinie;52955535]I don't see how to reconcile the two points of views in this thread, one side wants to live in a world of bubblewrap, drowning in government regulation. The other side is OK with the dangers that come with giving freedoms to others.[/QUOTE] It's called compromise and it's something that most people in recent years seem to have forgotten exists.

[QUOTE=Zombinie;52955535]I don't see how to reconcile the two points of views in this thread, one side wants to live in a world of bubblewrap, drowning in government regulation. The other side is OK with the dangers that come with giving freedoms to others. I am not sure it is possible to convince someone as paranoid as proboards that freedom has an intrinsic value that outweighs the chance of harm to innocents.[/QUOTE] I'd love to have a middle ground where we have good non-intrusive regulations, but still be allowed to exercise our rights as we wish. But there's too many people, mostly liberals in my experience, unwilling to compromise.

[QUOTE=papkee;52955543]It's called compromise and it's something that most people in recent years seem to have forgotten exists.[/QUOTE] But how can a mutually satisfactory compromise be achieved when one side wants nothing less than a total ban?