Ridiculous U.S. gun laws.

[BoganUSAFFLClerk]

Had your assailant been holding a gun when he attacked you, it would also have been entirely different regardless of what you had holstered.

Do I need to cue the woooo-eee-ooo-eee-ooo music for cowboys in preparation for your response about being the fastest shooter in the West? I expect so.

I still would have had the edge because of my training and the fact that I wear lvl 3a body armor that is spike rated.

It would have pretty much forced me to kill him to not risk a headshot against me.

If you want to argue and argue well then leave your lame salty comments to yourself.

 

[BoganUSAFFLClerk]

Y'all can listen to this while reading the thread.

You suck you have it all wrong.



Everyone knows the most successful training tactic is the final duel choreography while training at the range with your bluetooth hearing protection.

 

[BoganUSAFFLClerk]

I find it contemptible when people try to argue away empirical data. I first look at data then form opinions, not form opinions then only allow in data that comfortingly corroborates what I already believe.

What did I say was inaccurate? 2/3 of gun deaths are suicides therefore not criminal.

 

[Sparhafoc]

What did I say was inaccurate? 2/3 of gun deaths are suicides therefore not criminal.

Watch the guy once again try to pocket the rabbit.

Who was talking about inaccurate?

Anyone find me discussion of comparative accuracy in the post he's nominally replying to?

I don't consider people clowns for no reason.

 

[Sparhafoc]

I still would have had the edge because of my training

 

[Sparhafoc]

It would have pretty much forced me to kill him to not risk a headshot against me.

 

[Sparhafoc]

If you want to argue and argue well then leave your lame salty comments to yourself.

Make me, you homoerotic fantasizing clown.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Considering the number of problems that follow immigrants into the country from their third world sources I would think it is civilized considering the number of illegals, organized crime, people gaming the system, politicians not actually achieving anything to address this problems in the majority, or generally increasing the social or economic reasons for crime yes the U.S. is very civilized.

These factors are no different than any other developed country.

What is different is the amount of violence, particularly gun-related, hence why America is considered more violent than other developed countries.

Interesting how "developed nations" is always used and that standard conveniently is more in control with the U.K.. That is sort of a conflict of interest isn't it?

The term is normally associated with the OECD, of which - apart from Mexico and Colombia - all are "high-income, very high human development index" countries.

It was founded by, and based in, France originally to promote European economic cooperation, and later changed to include non-European countries.

Hardly "more in control with the UK".

Also crime seems to be concentrated in specific areas. If one looks up crime rates by locale in the U.S. the most violent cities make up the most violence for the state. Increases in homicide only mostly reflect the capitol of a state and not the outlying regions. If one were to discount the top 5 in the U.S. prior to Corona our violent crime rate and murder rates would be very similar to the rest of the EU. That repeat business in crime in the same areas even though the authorities know exactly who is committing the crimes and who is committing the same or similar crimes repeatedly is very telling.

So, if one compares cities with cities throughout the developed world, the answer would be the same: American cities are more violent than the rest of the developed world.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Greg the Grouper]

I don't understand why I.D. cards hinder anyone. They are obtained at no cost and verify who you are. They are required to purchase ammunition and required to purchase various other items as well. Does this mean you shouldn't have to present identification when buying a vehicle, booze, cigarettes, or voting when the integrity of elections are always in question? Notice the trend of events in U.S. elections went from: No evidence of voter fraud. No evidence of widespread election fraud. No evidence of widespread purposeful election voting etc. There is definitely evidence of voting records being inaccurate and being off in the number of thousands. It is also ironic considering the U.S. is the least restrictive in terms of voting requirements and yet outsiders grant criticism to voting in the U.S. but not in their own country.

If you have any plans to discuss election fraud memes, you'll have to do so with someone else.

Voting is the means by which your average person has any meaningful say on the society in which they live and how it functions. Its minimum requirement, if it can truly be said that voting carries any such requirement, is consistent interaction with society. Defending this right, and enabling people to act on this right, should be one of the highest priorities of basically everyone in our society.

To this end, voter ID only serves as an arbitrary barrier to exercising this right. Either people would have to secure this ID, which not everyone has the luxury of being able to do, or the government would have to provide said ID, and given they already like playing games with polling stations and district lines, I'm frankly not willing to give them the means by which they can arbitrarily decide who is and isn't granted access to a fundamental right.

The only thing you mentioned that comes anywhere close to being as important as a vote is the operation of a motor vehicle. The only reason I'd entertain that is because public transportation tends to be pretty bad in the US. Even then, a motor vehicle is heavy machinery; it only makes sense that we make sure people know how to operate them. Are you under the impression that voter IDs would ensure that their recipients understand the mechanics of casting a vote?

I think it is more important which persons autonomy is threatened. Obviously with me carrying a firearm that intent is aimed at reducing the autonomy of evil doers not the law abiding or productive members of society. Mal intent should always be restricted.

Malicious intent is just vague enough to describe my class interests! So, no.

Gun controls however when I analyze them don't reduce the amount of mal intent from evil doers from a look at American gun laws. Overwhelmingly it is security theatre or outright ignorance for what politicians are attempting to regulate. Labeling a weapon more effective because it has a pistol grip is borderline retarded and has no actual effect on crime.

Well, we could do stuff that sociologists and criminologists think would help with crime, like making sure people have access to work, food, affordable housing, and legal recourses.

I see no reason to give the opportunity to vote for felon's unless that felony record has been challenged and dismissed at some point.

Because the rights of human beings are more valuable than your feelings on the matter.

To be honest, I always find it strange when I see this coming from the right. The supposed party of free speech, that complains about censorship, and so on. Here we are, discussing laws that relegate a whole swath of our fellow countrymen to the status of second class citizens, unable from this moment on to have any say whatsoever in a bureaucracy that will define the very infrastructure that they'll have to contend with for the rest of their lives, and that's just okay?

No. People should have a say in matters that directly affect their lives, whether you or anyone else cares for it or not. This, if anything, should be met with uncompromising derision, treated in our society as an attempt to undermine fundamental liberties essential to leading a dignified life, and punished with exile from the country, the seizure of assets, or something far more draconian.

My brother is a felon and he is a felon for stupid reasons and not for reasons of mal intent or being an attacker. Still I don't think such convicted persons should have a say in what happens in society when they are such fuck ups. They don't have any say in order to have criminal influence in what happens in society. Address your own record, challenge it and have it dismissed. I am in favor of redress of the criminal justice system in regards to specifics and matters of degree.

Are you under the impression that, by giving felons the right to vote, we'll suddenly be voting every year on whether or not burglary and arson should be legal?

Also, why does your brother get a free pass? I don't care if you think it's stupid; if you're gonna say that part of committing a felony is losing your right to vote, that applies just as much to your brother as it does to anyone else.

That is hopelessly gullible. That has been attempted multiple times with buybacks and it only concerns the law abiding. Criminals are going to keep them regardless.

Well, good thing I didn't say anything about legislating anything. I want more guns for more people than you do.

I don't know why you want to lean so hard on this people/criminal divide, as though criminals aren't a subset of people, or are criminals from the day they're born. I'm pretty sure there are quite a few school shooters in the history of our nation that don't have some lengthy, previous criminal history.

We have wasted millions of dollars on this and in the safest time in human history there is still great need for lethal force in the U.S.

In the safest time in human history, there is still a great need for lethal force in the U.S.

In the safest time in human history.
A great need for lethal force.

I mean, I could argue it? But I come at this from a much different perspective.

Logistically speaking I don't think it would even be possible to narrow down and disarm everyone not supposed to be armed.

Considering 'everyone not supposed to be armed' is an empty set, I'd agree.

Well, okay, not entirely empty. Handing guns to people incapable of safely using them for medical reasons isn't a good idea. Although, they probably have a documented medical history that you could use to preclude them from owning guns.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Newspeak - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Deleted member 42253]

To be honest, I always find it strange when I see this coming from the right. The supposed party of free speech, that complains about censorship, and so on. Here we are, discussing laws that relegate a whole swath of our fellow countrymen to the status of second class citizens, unable from this moment on to have any say whatsoever in a bureaucracy that will define the very infrastructure that they'll have to contend with for the rest of their lives, and that's just okay?

That might be, because the right is not in favor of free speech in general, but just their right to say whatever vile thing they want.
The right is also not in favor of freedom in general, but their freedom to be assholes.

Btw. do you know the difference between you, me and a criminal? One bad day, one bad decision, one bad friend ... and most of the time, location. There is no quantifiable difference between criminals and non criminals, none, nada, nijente, zero, null.

 

[Sparhafoc]

There is no quantifiable difference between criminals and non criminals, none, nada, nijente, zero, null.

Uh... criminals broke the law and got caught.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Oh wait... I forgot you don't comply with the law of non-contradiction, so you'll probably agree and then repeat the same borked contention.

 

[Deleted member 42253]

Uh... criminals broke the law and got caught.

And .. that did change their genetic makeup somehow? Turned them into a different species? Completly altered the makeup of their brain? Permanently changed their chemical and hormonal balance?

Also .. how do you objectivly measure "broke the law and got caught"?

 

[Greg the Grouper]

Is it cool if we all just agree that 'criminal' refers to someone legally convicted of an offense, and that they can be distinguished as a subset of the populace with a history of past convictions? This seems like it's about to become a really stupid conversation.

 

[Sparhafoc]

And .. that did change their genetic makeup somehow? Turned them into a different species? Completly altered the makeup of their brain? Permanently changed their chemical and hormonal balance?

Did I suggest magic was involved somewhere?

Or did I point out that your asinine assertion was manifestly false?

Oh yeah, the latter.

Also .. how do you objectivly measure "broke the law and got caught"?

It's hard to see how it's possible to converse with someone who's so willfully stupid. How do you objectively measure it? See, there's this thing called a 'law'. That law says you can't do X. A person who does X regardless of that law is a criminal. Objective.

 

[Sparhafoc]

This seems like it's about to become a really stupid conversation.

There's a pattern of that with respect to this guy.

 

[*SD*]

There's a pattern of that with respect to this guy.

It does grow rather tiresome.

 

[Deleted member 42253]

@Sparhafoc Yes, it is really hard to converse with someone willfully stupid.

 

[Deleted member 42253]

It does grow rather tiresome.

I am sorry for hurting your sensibilities.