Clinton said last night that "we lose 33,000 a year to gun violence"

[Jameerthefear]

But 63% of that 33,000 are suicides. Why do people listen to this silver tongued bitch?

[ShaqTwizzle]

But 63% of that 33,000 are suicides. Why do people listen to this silver tongued bitch?

Exactly.
Then you factor in gang-banger violence (all using illegal weapons) and you take away another 30% or so if not more.

Gun violence is not a big issue at all.
This is just a case of a huge corrupt government wanting to take power away from the people and burn the constitution/old ways so they can more easily control us/enslave us.

F*ck Hillary Clinton and F*ck big Government.

[T_L_P]

Exactly.
Then you factor in gang-banger violence (all using illegal weapons) and you take away another 30% or so if not more.

Gun violence is not a big issue at all.
This is just a case of a huge corrupt government wanting to take power away from the people and burn the constitution/old ways so they can more easily control us/enslave us.

F*ck Hillary Clinton and F*ck big Government.

All you Yanks do is complain about your country, yet there is 0% chance you'll ever use those guns (that are apparently there to protect your rights) against those wrongdoers.

Yank logic: guns = power.

Probably the main reason why European police forces shit all over their citizens while the American people stand up to them.

Or is it the other way 'round?

[pastis]

All you Yanks do is complain about your country, yet there is 0% chance you'll ever use those guns (that are apparently there to protect your rights) against those wrongdoers.

Yank logic: guns = power.

Probably the main reason why European police forces shit all over their citizens while the American people stand up to them.

Or is it the other way 'round?

nice comment TLP. but it seems that a big part of ish is weapon addicted. i def. wouldnt feel comfortable going out at night in a bar in the midwest of the usa e.g.

[fiddy]

Im curious, how many of those are attributed to illegal firearms.

[ShaqTwizzle]

Please explain how suicide by gun isn't a violent act that uses a gun.

People kill themselves with rope all the time.
Should we ban rope also?
Should we ban helium?

Many people use guns for suicide simply because it is more convenient.
I shouldn't lose the right to arm and protect myself because some depressed guy killed himself (which should be his right anyway).

http://i.4cdn.org/pol/1450628694137.jpg

[DrakeTheSnake]

But 63% of that 33,000 are suicides. Why do people listen to this silver tongued bitch?
What's the problem? You don't think people shooting themselves is a problem? You also don't think that over 11,000 people shooting others to death is a problem either?

[GIF REACTION]

People who suicide with guns are already half way in the grave even without the guns

I'd think you'll find that some other suicide method shall take it's place, and even then these people are a hazard and a problem to society so it's not exactly the worst thing that they are dying. Call it population control for the weak minded. Not so different for the glutton-us population control of those who lack patience or responsibility for their body... Alcohol and smoking are legal tenders last time I checked.

[ShaqTwizzle]

Good job not answering my question.

I don't think people shooting themselves is gun violence.
Violence is one person harming another.

Suicide is suicide regardless of the method and you stop it by improving your mental health support systems.
You don't stop it by taking away guns/knives/rope/sleeping pills and putting bubble wrap around everything.

Suicide doesn't happen because guns exist... it happens because people have mental issues that aren't being taken care of.

[pastis]

Germany's rate of firearms homicide is 17 times lower than the USA's.

http://www.zeit.de/2014/04/waffen-deutschland

this article speaks about just 5,5 mio legal weapons in germany for 1.45 million people.

edit: the US should at least introduce a background-test, regarding previous convictions and mental disease

[Hawker]

All you Yanks do is complain about your country, yet there is 0% chance you'll ever use those guns (that are apparently there to protect your rights) against those wrongdoers.

Yank logic: guns = power.

Probably the main reason why European police forces shit all over their citizens while the American people stand up to them.

Or is it the other way 'round?

Sure, americans love to complain but foreigners are obsessed with America. Popular to hate on them as well for no logical reason.

[Norcaliblunt]

Damn that's a lot of suicidal people with weapons! I thought gun owners were a happy go lucky bunch, who would've thought?

[Norcaliblunt]

So people aren't really protecting themselves, they are shooting themselves. Got'cha.

[Draz]

Im curious, how many of those are attributed to illegal firearms.
0 because cops killed them all :lol

[BoutPractice]

Still counts. Wider availability of firearms probably causes suicides that wouldn't have happened otherwise, as human beings are easily influenced.

As for the rope argument, the difference is that rope can be used for something else whereas guns serve no useful purpose other than killing.

I have no problem with confiscating all weapons that are only weapons. There is a good argument to be made for confiscating all weapons, banning the entire weapons industry, and launching international action against illegal weapons trafficking in places like the Balkans. We won't get rid of all weapons, but the effort will get us closer to where we need to be.

No doubt some will argue that this'd mean the military has access to weapons but citizens don't. But that's already the case. The military has access to nukes, and we don't... They already have us where they want, if they really wanted to kill and oppress their own people they could easily do it... Since extraordinary violence is a possibility whatever we choose to do, might as well reduce the ordinary levels of violence in society.

As for the liberty argument, you shouldn't have the "liberty" to use violence against your fellow man. Your liberty stops where the other person's begins... violence is the antithesis of liberty, it is by definition the negation of someone else's liberty. Now surely you have a right to self-defense, in the specific moment where you are attacked (and even then, this right does not give you license to do whatever you want: just because your life is being directly threatened doesn't mean you have a right to kill others when this could have been avoided without putting your life in danger)... but this shouldn't extend to actions you would take in anticipation to a potential or imagined attack, when those actions put other human lives in danger themselves...

But ultimately it's not just about liberty, it's about common sense and basic understanding of human psychology. Giving people the opportunity to act on their fear of violence tends to create the violence it sought to avoid. We create the world we believe in - our expectations are self-fulfilling. This is well known to military specialists who understand the dynamics of arms races, for example. Fear that a rival country is developing weapons to attack you leads you to develop your own weapons, which leads that country to develop their own weapons, which feeds into the narrative that each country is threatening the other, which culminates in war. Classic scenario repeated endlessly since the beginning of time.

[Velocirap31]

For the land of the free and the world's most advanced democracy (both lies), the citizens of the USA sure have a lot of distrust for their own government.

[NumberSix]

For the land of the free and the world's most advanced democracy (both lies), the citizens of the USA sure have a lot of distrust for their own government.
Yeah, it's the land of free people. Not government subjects.

[KevinNYC]

Guns make impulsive suicides easier and makes attempts more likely to suceed.

A close friend's father, did it this way. Grabbed a gun during an argument with his wife and used it.

You take pills, you can get your stomach pumped. You cut your wrists, you can get bandaged. Harder to reverse a gunshot to the head.

[Norcaliblunt]

Sounds like the person they shouldn't be trusting is themselves, they might blow their own head off.

[ZenMaster]

Sure, americans love to complain but foreigners are obsessed with America. Popular to hate on them as well for no logical reason.

The guy you quoted gave a reason for the "hate", and it was not illogical at all.

[Cleverness]

We lose 33,000 a year to gun violence

We lose 480,000 a year to cigarette smoking

We need to focus on banning smoking, then we should focus on banning guns, alcohol, freedom, and bad foods.

:banana:

[Kblaze8855]

Exactly.
Then you factor in gang-banger violence (all using illegal weapons) and you take away another 30% or so if not more.

Gun violence is not a big issue at all.

It isnt an issue that tens of thousands are killed? Even if many are illegal weapons...how is it not an issue? Over 700 times the last two years in America some nut shot 4 or more people. Those arent an issue?

Terrorists will never do the damage in America that idiots and otherwise easily contained ******* do with guns.

The extreme situations gun nuts come up with the justify everyone having a gun are hilarious. Posting Hitler and Stalin pictures like Obama is gonna come storming through their neighborhood ethnic cleansing if they dont have a Ar 15 to fend him off....

A serious change will happen in time. I dont know what its gonna take. Some madman shooting up a toy convention killing 200 kids might not do it at this point....but it will happen eventually. And you know what will happen?

Nothing. The government is not gonna enslave 350 million Americans. The soldiers wouldnt comply if the order came down. Some rednecks will be pissed....a few will join up and start murdering the cops sent to make them register their guns....they will be killed....we will have a couple Waco type media events....and over 20-30 years as the gunnumbers decline hundreds of thousands of people will live who otherwise wouldnt.

And people will still be yelling about the king of england potentially landing on our shores and them not being able to fend him off. A few will go crazy every time there is a knife attack that kills 3 when a gun would have killed 20....claim liberals should be calling for a knife ban. When criminals are slow to give them up(and they will be) every random act robbery with a gun or a shooting will be played up as if it being a third as common means gun control isnt working.

Fact is when America really cracks down on guns its gonna save thousands of lives....quickly. Tens of thousands in the first few years. Millions long term. But some people just....like guns. And they will tie that to the constitution they regularly shit on and pretend they care. Nobody thinks the first ammendment should apply when you yell fire in a crowded place...its a safety issue. Cant be causing people to panic and get trampled. Nobody cares about a lawful search when a suspected terrorist is about to do something heiniuos. Id say...kick in his door warrant or no. If they were wrong....pay the lawsuit. **** the 4th ammendment.

Safety first. This line of thinking will eventually extend to the second. More fully at least. Its already there is ways...which is why I cant buy a rocket launcher at walmart. Some "arms" are too dangerous to just assume the public will be responsible. In time...guns will be on that list. Not for everyone.....but for a lot of people.

Millions will be saved and people will somehow still act like it wasnt the greater good.

I dont have a problem with guns themselves. I consider getting one at times. Plenty of my friends have them. I live in the south. Im around guns. Id trust me with a gun...I might even trust you if we met.

But I dont trust 300 million people. And if me not having one is the price I have to pay to keep them from millions who are insane....ill pay it.

[Dresta]

All you Yanks do is complain about your country, yet there is 0% chance you'll ever use those guns (that are apparently there to protect your rights) against those wrongdoers.

Yank logic: guns = power.

Probably the main reason why European police forces shit all over their citizens while the American people stand up to them.

Or is it the other way 'round?
No, that is just realistic and sensible logic. Without guns you'd still be living under the Feudal manor, as only those with wealth had the power to protect themselves.

Guns, and their empowerment of the individual, are one of the biggest reasons you enjoy all the freedoms and pleasures you do, and that's why the founding fathers, in their superior wisdom, saw the need for the second amendment.

Europe is looking increasingly ****ed as hordes of migrants trample all over law and order, while the police stand looking on, afraid to do anything (see Calais, see Marseilles, where the police rarely venture, or the London riots, or many, many examples of the gradual erosion of law and order in Europe).

Watch, European countries will be using their militaries to keep law and order within a few decades at the most.

[TommyGriffin]

What's the problem? You don't think people shooting themselves is a problem? You also don't think that over 11,000 people shooting others to death is a problem either?

11,000 a year in a country with 300+ million people isn't bad at all...

[Dresta]

Still counts. Wider availability of firearms probably causes suicides that wouldn't have happened otherwise, as human beings are easily influenced.

As for the rope argument, the difference is that rope can be used for something else whereas guns serve no useful purpose other than killing.

I have no problem with confiscating all weapons that are only weapons. There is a good argument to be made for confiscating all weapons, banning the entire weapons industry, and launching international action against illegal weapons trafficking in places like the Balkans. We won't get rid of all weapons, but the effort will get us closer to where we need to be.

No doubt some will argue that this'd mean the military has access to weapons but citizens don't. But that's already the case. The military has access to nukes, and we don't... They already have us where they want, if they really wanted to kill and oppress their own people they could easily do it... Since extraordinary violence is a possibility whatever we choose to do, might as well reduce the ordinary levels of violence in society.

As for the liberty argument, you shouldn't have the "liberty" to use violence against your fellow man. Your liberty stops where the other person's begins... violence is the antithesis of liberty, it is by definition the negation of someone else's liberty. Now surely you have a right to self-defense, in the specific moment where you are attacked (and even then, this right does not give you license to do whatever you want: just because your life is being directly threatened doesn't mean you have a right to kill others when this could have been avoided without putting your life in danger)... but this shouldn't extend to actions you would take in anticipation to a potential or imagined attack, when those actions put other human lives in danger themselves...

But ultimately it's not just about liberty, it's about common sense and basic understanding of human psychology. Giving people the opportunity to act on their fear of violence tends to create the violence it sought to avoid. We create the world we believe in - our expectations are self-fulfilling. This is well known to military specialists who understand the dynamics of arms races, for example. Fear that a rival country is developing weapons to attack you leads you to develop your own weapons, which leads that country to develop their own weapons, which feeds into the narrative that each country is threatening the other, which culminates in war. Classic scenario repeated endlessly since the beginning of time.
I laugh at this kind of point - your reason for not allowing people guns is that the government has... nukes? The balance of power lies so heavily on one side that we should... tip things further in that direction?

Illogical nonsense.

Nukes are a monstrous creation, the eventual repercussions of which we have not yet suffered. Clearly, if so much power hadn't been arbitrarily handed over to the state, systematically, all throughout Europe and the US, we may not have the problem of nukes in the first place. What is also clear is that we developed too fast and too rapidly for our own good (industrially and technologically).

None of what you are saying makes a legit case for the worldwide banning of guns; all you're doing is making a case for the disempowerment of the individual, and the further empowerment of unaccountable and irremovable elites. That you don't see the logical repercussions to the points you make is quite astounding. In your drive to eradicate all evil you create an abundance of completely unnecessary and easily avoidable evils.

[Nick Young]

She is the next George W. Bush. It will be scary if she gets in to office. She will also be desperate to shed the soft woman card, so you know she's going to go hard as f*ck guns blazing in Syria and probably get us in to loads of new wars. It doesn't matter how many men die and get their legs and arms blown off to do it. Remember, it's the women back home, cheating on their boyfriends and husbands who are risking their lives every day to protect America, who are actually the primary victims of war.

Dunno why dems want her in power. She is a warmongering moderate conservative with a decade+ voting record to prove it.

[Norcaliblunt]

Fools aren't protecting themselves though. They are killing themselves.

[Styles p]

Guns are fun.

[Snow]

nice comment TLP. but it seems that a big part of ish is weapon addicted. i def. wouldnt feel comfortable going out at night in a bar in the midwest of the usa e.g.

Funny, I travelled all over the midwest and have never been robbed by criminal up close and personal but on my 2nd night in Barcelona 2 punks tried to mug me.

[masonanddixon]

Why do people need guns? America is the only major Western country in which guns haven't been banned.

[Nick Young]

Why do people need guns? America is the only major Western country in which guns haven't been banned.
People need guns to kill things.

[ROCSteady]

Please explain how suicide by gun isn't a violent act that uses a gun.

Because suicide and homicide have entirely different motivations and dynamics.

They are not the same in the argument against gun control.

[Kblaze8855]

And the idea that gun bans will save millions of lives is so ill informed its ludicrous.

Im hoping you dont think I mean right away.

Its thousands a year by any metric. Should I expect america to end in 30-40 years?

And I dont know why we are trying to dscount gang related murders. It wouldnt hit the numbers hard right away....but guns dont last forever. And ammo runs out. Just making it harder to resupply would long term....greatly reduce the number of gang members with them. If a gun is 800 dollars on the street and not 150....these poor kids will have less of them. If you must make your own ammo...steal it from the government...or buy it deep black market....they will have less of it.

There is no way the longterm result isnt many ives saved.

That criminals wont give them up is the only valid argument I see against gun control....but guns and ammo arent limitless. It would no doubt...save lives. The only issue is how many thousands it would have to be in order for opponents to care.

Nobody cares about kids shooting eachother in the face when they dont know the kid....

The argument that it would only save thousands short term instead of millions is no argument at all.

85 thousand people get shot and live some years. Its a problem. A massive problem.

[Cleverness]

Look at brazil. Way fewer guns per capita, way way stricter gun laws, but way worse gang violence.
Its not the guns. Its the culture. If you want to reduce the violence, first you need to improve poor neighborhoods where this stuff spawns and cultivate a culture where gangs wont become prevalent. Not easy, no doubt, but thats the ultimate solution. You dont see this stuff in gated communities.

the only thing youre going to put a dent in is the 2200 non gang related deaths. Thats not going to go anywhere near the millions.

And beyond all this its a constitutional right whether you want it to be or not. Guns arent going away in the US within any of our lifetimes, so its best to look for alternative solutions.

yep. also, it's very unfortunate that nobody cares about the thousands of black people who are getting killed. we're only talking about this because a few white kids (relatively speaking) were killed. that's when all the media & white people jumped on board.

[fiddy]

yep. also, it's very unfortunate that nobody cares about the thousands of black people who are getting killed. we're only talking about this because a few white kids (relatively speaking) were killed. that's when all the media & white people jumped on board.
Meanwhile, rapper still kill nikkaz for fun in their rhymes,...oh wait, silly me, thats just entertainment and has nothing to do with real life :hammerhead:

[MMKM]

In true Trump wisdom, either we have a Constitution or we don't have a Constitution. Decide what you want.

[UK2K]

What's the problem? You don't think people shooting themselves is a problem? You also don't think that over 11,000 people shooting others to death is a problem either?
Suicide is not a factor of gun violence.

And no, 11,000 of 320,000,000 is insignificant.

[MMKM]

Can the crackers just move back to Europe and leave the peaceful African-Americans alone?

We'd go to Africa, but the white man injected their pig skinned diseases among the continent and gave war lords guns to go wild with.

:oldlol: Africans are violent in America and even more violent in Africa. And your continent had slaves before ours did.

[joe]

Its funny watching the corrupt royalty slowly convince the slaves to give away their right to bear arms. You willfully give away something that will put our species deeper into slavery.

[Kblaze8855]

Look at brazil. Way fewer guns per capita, way way stricter gun laws, but way worse gang violence.
Its not the guns. Its the culture. If you want to reduce the violence, first you need to improve poor neighborhoods where this stuff spawns and cultivate a culture where gangs wont become prevalent. Not easy, no doubt, but thats the ultimate solution. You dont see this stuff in gated communities.

the only thing youre going to put a dent in is the 2200 non gang related deaths. Thats not going to go anywhere near the millions.

And beyond all this its a constitutional right whether you want it to be or not. Guns arent going away in the US within any of our lifetimes, so its best to look for alternative solutions.

I'm not comparing America to Brazil. It makes no more sense than the people who want to compare American to Luxembourg and other random countries nothing like us.

I somehow suspect that if you removed guns America doesn't turn to a borderline third world country with entire cities ruled by gang violence and drug cartels.

if you can't grant that greatly reducing the supply of guns and ammunition would make a dent in how many criminals have them we can't even talk reasonably.

the only issue there should be is by how much and how long would it take to be significant.

[fiddy]

Its funny watching the corrupt royalty slowly convince the slaves to give away their right to bear arms. You willfully give away something that will put our species deeper into slavery.
Its too late, majority of people have already subjected themselves to voluntary slavery via social media, mainstream media and mobile devices. RIP humanity.

[KevinNYC]

http://i.4cdn.org/pol/1450628694137.jpg

I don't know if that quote is true, but George Mason did not co-author the Bill of Rights.

He authored something similiar for the state of Virginia. The article dealing arms is even more clearly about militias vs standing armies than the 2nd Amendment is.

[ballup]

If guns kill people, how come guns don't go to jail?

[KyrieTheFuture]

Suicide is not a factor of gun violence.

And no, 11,000 of 320,000,000 is insignificant.
It's really more 11,000 of 2,500,000 deaths which is still pretty insignificant statistically but still a lot more than it should be

[fiddy]

If guns kill people, how come guns don't go to jail?
Goons do

[NumberSix]

Can the crackers just move back to Europe and leave the peaceful African-Americans alone?

We'd go to Africa, but the white man injected their pig skinned diseases among the continent and gave war lords guns to go wild with.
:roll: :roll: :roll:

[Nick Young]

Can the crackers just move back to Europe and leave the peaceful African-Americans alone?

We'd go to Africa, but the white man injected their pig skinned diseases among the continent and gave war lords guns to go wild with.
You gonna act like Africans didn't introduce slavery to the white man? You gonna act like Africans weren't enslaving Africans and trading them to Euros in exchange for guns and bread?



TL; DR

You gonna act like Africans AREN'T just as responsible for the slave trade as whitey Euros are?


Whitey Euros wouldn't have gone in to the slave trade if Africans didn't offer them human slaves in exchange for guns.

[NumberSix]

I'm not comparing America to Brazil. It makes no more sense than the people who want to compare American to Luxembourg and other random countries nothing like us.
That's the entire point. :hammerhead:

It's the culture of the place that creates violence, not the access to guns. The Swiss have access to guns that Americans couldn't dream of legally owning.

Guns don't make people violent or not violent.

Plano Texas has the highest rate of gun ownership in America. Why is it also 1 of the top 10 safest cities and one of the lowest crime rates in America? Why does Chicago who is much stricter on guns have so much more gun violence? The answer is obvious. The people of Plano just don't have the same thirst for violence that the people of Chicago do. If the people of Chicago absolutely could not get their hands on guns, would there be less violence? Probably, but why the hell are they so prone to violence in the first place?

It's not the access to guns. Something is making some people more violent than others.

[NumberSix]

Shooting yourself in the head with a gun is a violent act that uses a gun. End of story.
What point are you making?

Do you not believe people have the right to end their own life?

[Kblaze8855]

That's the entire point. :hammerhead:

It's the culture of the place that creates violence, not the access to guns. The Swiss have access to guns that Americans couldn't dream of legally owning.

Guns don't make people violent or not violent.

Plano Texas has the highest rate of gun ownership in America. Why is it also 1 of the top 10 safest cities and one of the lowest crime rates in America? Why does Chicago who is much stricter on guns have so much more gun violence? The answer is obvious. The people of Plano just don't have the same thirst for violence that the people of Chicago do. If the people of Chicago absolutely could not get their hands on guns, would there be less violence? Probably, but why the hell are they so prone to violence in the first place?

It's not the access to guns. Something is making some people more violent than others.



I'm going to go ahead and assume nobody believes guns created human violence. But there should also be nobody who believes that a million people trying to act on their violent urges without guns are as dangerous as a million who have them.

my problem obviously isn't the gun itself. It's that guns make otherwise easily contained psychos and morons far more dangerous than they should be.

Some would still get guns obviously. Some would be bright enough to come up with bombs and such. But we should all be 100% certain that less of these maniacs would become threats on the scale they have proven they can be with easy access to firearms.

[Derka]

Why does anyone listen to any elected official? They're pretty much all liars.

[Simple Jack]

The people simply citing the numbers, and calling them insignificant are missing an important point - the impact of such gun related atrocities. Despite the fact that ___ number of people die at the hands of gang violence, or by knife attacks, or by (plenty of other violent acts) - they simply do not have the emotional effect and impact of these large-scale, gun caused atrocities.

The Newtown shooting was no doubt more impactful, upsetting, scary, captivating, and any other adjective you would use - than the deaths caused by gang violence.

If even for only this reason alone - we should strongly consider the implications of such murders and try to arrive at a reasonable solution.


The Government ideally should invest some of their spending in providing armed security at certain target locations - and provide for their training. In situations where a shooter has a gun and is willing to use it (or planned on using it to carry out his objective of killing as many people as possible) - I'm not sure anyone in the zone of danger will be relieved knowing that not a single GOOD GUY in the vicinity, who is ideally well trained, doesn't have a gun due to the government simply banning them all. They are more likely thinking (as would anyone in such a situation) that they wish they themselves, or the ex-marine who is working at the office, had their own guns so that they could effectively defend themselves.

With the exception of a few unlikely situations - a gun is really the only way to stop another person with a gun (especially if the bad guy is utilizing an automatic weapon). This is why we call the police in these situations - is it not? They are (hopefully good guys) armed and trained and have the means (a gun of their own) to stop the perpetrators. Unfortunately, police don't show up automatically, which gives the perpetrators time to carry out their evil acts.


As for the whole Second Amendment issue and NRA nutjobs claiming that they need such weapons in order to form militias and defend themselves against the possible tyranny of the government - does anyone really think the weapons of a private citizen would be even REMOTELY effective against the sheer power of the military's weaponry? As if these privately owned weapons would even be remotely effective against a Black Hawk...

[NumberSix]

I'm going to go ahead and assume nobody believes guns created human violence. But there should also be nobody who believes that a million people trying to act on their violent urges without guns are as dangerous as a million who have them.

my problem obviously isn't the gun itself. It's that guns make otherwise easily contained psychos and morons far more dangerous than they should be.

Some would still get guns obviously. Some would be bright enough to come up with bombs and such. But we should all be 100% certain that less of these maniacs would become threats on the scale they have proven they can be with easy access to firearms.
America is based on INDIVIDUAL rights, not what's hypothetically good for "society".

Every person has a moral right to protect their own individual life. Your idea is that if we all make ourselves vulnerable, less people will die overall. That's probably true, but I'm not responsible for everybody's lives and I'm not obligated to sacrifice my safety for some collective numbers game.

Here's a simple test. Would you kill 1 innocent person to save 2 other innocent people? The obvious answer should be no. Those lives don't belong to you and their fate isn't yours to decide. It's not just a case of "well, 2 lives are more important than 1". Every individual has a right to life and their life isn't yours to take.

[ace23]

The people simply citing the numbers, and calling them insignificant are missing an important point - the impact of such gun related atrocities. Despite the fact that ___ number of people die at the hands of gang violence, or by knife attacks, or by (plenty of other violent acts) - they simply do not have the emotional effect and impact of these large-scale, gun caused atrocities.

The Newtown shooting was no doubt more impactful, upsetting, scary, captivating, and any other adjective you would use - than the deaths caused by gang violence.
Lol wonder why you feel that way...

[Dresta]

America is based on INDIVIDUAL rights, not what's hypothetically good for "society".

Every person has a moral right to protect their own individual life. Your idea is that if we all make ourselves vulnerable, less people will die overall. That's probably true, but I'm not responsible for everybody's lives and I'm not obligated to sacrifice my safety for some collective numbers game.

Here's a simple test. Would you kill 1 innocent person to save 2 other innocent people? The obvious answer should be no. Those lives don't belong to you and their fate isn't yours to decide. It's not just a case of "well, 2 lives are more important than 1". Every individual has a right to life and their life isn't yours to take.
Ding ding ding. In the end, a small bit of extra security, in an already plenty secure world, is not worth the cost of depriving the individual of the right and the duty to defend himself and his loved ones, and instead forcing them to rely on the state for their defense and security - thus making them further dependent, more inclined to worship and defend it. 'Liberals' used to care about liberty, but now they have travelled the full circle, and only chirp on about security (i.e. 'freedom' from things that are bad).

Reminds me of a couple quotes I recently came across:


‘Whatever the blessings of Security, the thinking conservative believes, it is possible to buy Security at too high a price. And the price we are now in danger of paying is very high indeed. It is the price of manhood. Once real virtue, manhood, the courage and responsibility of free men, are extinguished in a society, presently security evaporates, too; but that is the lesser loss. The conservative maintains that there is something better than to know what it is to be guaranteed and protected and pensioned. The better state is to know what it is to be a man.’

And the inevitable consequences of this:

‘Although we might find it possible to extirpate heroism, with all the devices for suppression and indoctrination now at our command, we could scarcely succeed in extirpating villainy. Nineteenth-century liberal humanitarianism would come down at last to a domination of squalid oligarchs, all in the name of “democracy” and “progress” and “security.”

- Kirk 60 years ago

Hmmmmm......

Sounds kinda familiar.

[NumberSix]

Ding ding ding. In the end, a small bit of extra security, in an already plenty secure world, is not worth the cost of depriving the individual of the right and the duty to defend himself and his loved ones, and instead forcing them to rely on the state for their defense and security - thus making them further dependent, more inclined to worship and defend it. 'Liberals' used to care about liberty, but now they have travelled the full circle, and only chirp on about security (i.e. 'freedom' from things that are bad).

Reminds me of a couple quotes I recently came across:


Hmmmmm......

Sounds kinda familiar.
Well, they still do. The problem though is that the label "liberal" has somehow been coopted by people that are anything but. The vast majority of people who call themselves "liberals" are in no way advocates of liberty. They're usually authoritarian statists. If you poll a crowd of people who identify as "liberal" you're more likely to find a Che Guevara shirt wearing, soviet flag waving communist than somebody who actually advocates individual liberty.

[Kblaze8855]

America is based on INDIVIDUAL rights, not what's hypothetically good for "society".

Every person has a moral right to protect their own individual life. Your idea is that if we all make ourselves vulnerable, less people will die overall. That's probably true, but I'm not responsible for everybody's lives and I'm not obligated to sacrifice my safety for some collective numbers game.

Here's a simple test. Would you kill 1 innocent person to save 2 other innocent people? The obvious answer should be no. Those lives don't belong to you and their fate isn't yours to decide. It's not just a case of "well, 2 lives are more important than 1". Every individual has a right to life and their life isn't yours to take.


it would obviously depend on the situation. If there are three people in a room and the room is going to blow up and kill all 3 unless I take some action that kills one of course you do it. at least once you know it's a credible threat and not some hoax.

you seem to be ok with many thousands of innocent people being killed to make you feel personally safer and that's not something anyone can really argue with. You're going to feel what you feel.

Long as you can acknowledge the obvious truth that the cost of your feeling safer is a bunch of murdered innocents there's not much left to say.

feel what you wish. At least you're reasonably honest about it. There are people who can't even be real about it.

[Kblaze8855]

Plus you can say all you want about individual freedom society has always reduced individual freedoms when there is a great enough danger to society as a whole.

That's why there are already plenty of weapons you can't have. Installing land mines on your property would be hard to call anything but a defensive measure but you sure as hell can't do it.

a lot of things would make someone feel safe that are and should be illegal for the greater good. The only issue is exactly where firearms fall on the list. Keep stacking atrocity on top of atrocity and they will move closer and closer to the unacceptable side.

I don't think is likely guns are ever just rounded up and taken by the government in my lifetime. But the point will come where a serious effort is made to reduce their availability. and many many many many innocent people will be saved because of it.

a few people will sacrifice their contentment in the idea that they can fend off a danger that is never going to come for most of them and tens of thousands will avoid death we know for certain are going to happen if steps aren't taken.

The greater good will be done and people will yell about their freedom while a gang of children get to grow up who would otherwise have been shot in the side of the face on their way to school.

Yell away. I will sleep soundly while you stay up brooding on lost freedom.

[NumberSix]

it would obviously depend on the situation. If there are three people in a room and the room is going to blow up and kill all 3 unless I take some action that kills one of course you do it. at least once you know it's a credible threat and not some hoax.

you seem to be ok with many thousands of innocent people being killed to make you feel personally safer and that's not something anyone can really argue with. You're going to feel what you feel.

Long as you can acknowledge the obvious truth that the cost of your feeling safer is a bunch of murdered innocents there's not much left to say.

feel what you wish. At least you're reasonably honest about it. There are people who can't even be real about it.
It's called free will. Some people will choose to do right and some people will choose to do wrong. That's the price of freedom. I'm not "ok with many thousands of innocent people being killed". Don't be ridiculous.

If privately owned cars were illegal and only public transportation was allowed, would that reduce the number of transportation related deaths? Yeah, it probably would. Is everybody who is in favor of private transportation "ok with many thousands of innocent people being killed"?

Lions in captivity live longer and get killed far less than free lions in the wild. That's not a great argument for captivity being better than freedom. Too many people basically want humans to live in captivity with the government being our keeper/trainer.

Is everybody who isn't in favor of absolute government control of society "ok with many thousands of innocent people being killed"?

[NumberSix]

That's why there are already plenty of weapons you can't have. Installing land mines on your property would be hard to call anything but a defensive measure but you sure as hell can't do it.
Land mines are anything but defensive. They are untargeted and kill indiscriminately. How do you defend yourself with a land mine? :hammerhead:

A land mine will kill unsuspecting people like the mail man, random joggers, animals, neighborhood kids, etc... And indiscriminately kill anybody who happens to be near by. What possible way could you defend yourself from an attacker with a land mine? Throw them at him?

You should be smart enough not to make such a stupid comparison.

[Dresta]

Plus you can say all you want about individual freedom society has always reduced individual freedoms when there is a great enough danger to society as a whole.

That's why there are already plenty of weapons you can't have. Installing land mines on your property would be hard to call anything but a defensive measure but you sure as hell can't do it.

a lot of things would make someone feel safe that are and should be illegal for the greater good. The only issue is exactly where firearms fall on the list. Keep stacking atrocity on top of atrocity and they will move closer and closer to the unacceptable side.

I don't think is likely guns are ever just rounded up and taken by the government in my lifetime. But the point will come where a serious effort is made to reduce their availability. and many many many many innocent people will be saved because of it.

a few people will sacrifice their contentment in the idea that they can fend off a danger that is never going to come for most of them and tens of thousands will avoid death we know for certain are going to happen if steps aren't taken.

The greater good will be done and people will yell about their freedom while a gang of children get to grow up who would otherwise have been shot in the side of the face on their way to school.

Yell away. I will sleep soundly while you stay up brooding on lost freedom.
Why are other people 'yelling' when it is people like yourself who won't stop chirping about guns day in and day out? You clearly aren't sleeping soundly, otherwise you wouldn't keep on chirping on about a long-established and engrained right, when it really has nothing to do with you.

This is just a standard deflective tactic from Kblaze. For some reason you think you can ignore all the arguments made by other people, and expect no-one not to notice that fact, just because you pose as some objective force of moderation. Look here:

'you seem to be ok with many thousands of innocent people being killed to make you feel personally safer and that's not something anyone can really argue with. You're going to feel what you feel.'

Right, it's only you who care about the 'thousands of innocents' and he only cares about what he is 'feeling' in the immediate present. That's not easy enough to turn on it's head :rolleyes:.

You, Kblaze, my good sir, seem happy to bequeath a legacy of subordination and servitude - combined with the rule of unaccountable and absolutist elites - to posterity, just so you can feel safer about yourself and your family right now in the present; or, so you can feel conscientious about doing enough to save an unknowable number of *gasp* 'innocent lives,' regardless of the long-run consequences. You gonna feel how you gonna feel doe.

These are scurrilous and underhand tactics, blatant attempts to smear without making an argument. The basic fact is that both sides of the debate are driven by fear of one sort or another: one fears the power of the state more than the wanton violence of his fellow citizens, and vice versa. Stop pretending your motives are oh-so-much more noble than those of the people you disagree with - it is childish and pathetic to make the argument that those who simply see things differently to you don't care about 'innocent lives.' Really, at your age, you should know better.

[NumberSix]

I don't think is likely guns are ever just rounded up and taken by the government in my lifetime. But the point will come where a serious effort is made to reduce their availability. and many many many many innocent people will be saved because of it.

a few people will sacrifice their contentment in the idea that they can fend off a danger that is never going to come for most of them and tens of thousands will avoid death we know for certain are going to happen if steps aren't taken.

The greater good will be done and people will yell about their freedom while a gang of children get to grow up who would otherwise have been shot in the side of the face on their way to school.

Yell away. I will sleep soundly while you stay up brooding on lost freedom.
To be clear, your position is that you would prefer that these people were not allowed to have those guns.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=EybxmPaSR6A

[Kblaze8855]

lot of stuff up there. I'm doing this through my phone so I probably just chime in now and then.

you really don't see how mining the entrance to your property is a defensive measure? it's essentially a fence no one will try to jump provided they know it exists. the problem with land mine isn't that they don't work for defense.

The problem is they are employed by people who would just leave them there and then they kill indiscriminately for decades. but they are absolutely a defensive weapon. they create a perimeter. It's that you can't throw them at someone that makes them defensive. you can deploy them offensively like you can with anything capable of doing harm...but they are the ultimate fence essentially. they are the line you do not cross. didn't we recently grant South Korea an exemption from international rules against them just to protect the Korean border?

[Kblaze8855]

Why are other people 'yelling' when it is people like yourself who won't stop chirping about guns day in and day out? You clearly aren't sleeping soundly, otherwise you wouldn't keep on chirping on about a long-established and engrained right, when it really has nothing to do with you.

This is just a standard deflective tactic from Kblaze. For some reason you think you can ignore all the arguments made by other people, and expect no-one not to notice that fact, just because you pose as some objective force of moderation. Look here:

'you seem to be ok with many thousands of innocent people being killed to make you feel personally safer and that's not something anyone can really argue with. You're going to feel what you feel.'

Right, it's only you who care about the 'thousands of innocents' and he only cares about what he is 'feeling' in the immediate present. That's not easy enough to turn on it's head :rolleyes:.

You, Kblaze, my good sir, seem happy to bequeath a legacy of subordination and servitude - combined with the rule of unaccountable and absolutist elites - to posterity, just so you can feel safer about yourself and your family right now in the present; or, so you can feel conscientious about doing enough to save an unknowable number of *gasp* 'innocent lives,' regardless of the long-run consequences. You gonna feel how you gonna feel doe.

These are scurrilous and underhand tactics, blatant attempts to smear without making an argument. The basic fact is that both sides of the debate are driven by fear of one sort or another: one fears the power of the state more than the wanton violence of his fellow citizens, and vice versa. Stop pretending your motives are oh-so-much more noble than those of the people you disagree with - it is childish and pathetic to make the argument that those who simply see things differently to you don't care about 'innocent lives.' Really, at your age, you should know better.


ok... Someone flat out directly tells me they know more people would be saved but it's not their responsibility and they don't want to give up feeling safer to make people safer in general. How am I not to take that to mean they care more about how they feel personally then the fact that giving up that feeling will save thousands of lives?

he tells me it's about his individual freedoms not what's good for society. Not some twist I'm making. Those are the words.

what does that mean if not that he considers his freedom to protect himself how he sees fit more important than the thousands of innocents who live if he loses that right?

isn't his whole point that it's about individual freedom and not the greater good? do you feel like twisting his meaning to say that?

[Kblaze8855]

To be clear, your position is that you would prefer that these people were not allowed to have those guns.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=EybxmPaSR6A


if we're going to start trading stories and YouTube videos I think we both know who comes out ahead on the "Well do you want things like this prevented?" argument.


besides my argument has never been that we eliminate guns or that no one can have them. there are plenty of people I know who have guns that I'm perfectly comfortable with.

the problem is the total number and how easily accessible they are for the people we know we don't want to have them.

people take such a jump from the idea that we should implement new rules and enforce some old ones on common sense grounds to a suggestion that the government send stormtroopers into everyone's house to take grandads hunting rifle.....

I'm saying if the people employed to make such determinations think he might be a terrorist who has just yet to do anything they can arrest him for maybe don't sell the guy an assault rifle.

I'm saying if there are much tougher penalties for moving guns without background checks and tracking who has them people would be less willing to sell them to shady characters.

I'm saying if people known to be violent and people associated with gang violence had much stiffer penalties for possession coupled with the long-term reduction in total availability of guns it would drive the cost of doing illegal business with them up to the point that low-level criminals wouldn't have such easy access.

I'm not saying you and your dad can't go hunting. I find the idea that there is sport in shooting an animal from a long way away ridiculous but I'm not saying that should be a law of stop you from doing it.
and I'm not saying that if you live in a bad neighborhood and you work nights and you want to give your wife a pistol so she feel safe at home alone with your baby you can't do it.

I'm saying that it's ridiculous that the gun industry and NRA can simply buy Congress and threaten to fund their rivals to the extent that people who you know have common sense have to pretend they don't and refuse to even have discussions on common sense measures.

I'm saying that it's ridiculous that everytime 20 or 30 people get shot politicians get on TV and say something completely useless like let's pray and not have a conversation about how to prevent this in the future. they will flat out tell us that now is not the time to talk about why this happened and how we can prevent it... it's only time to kneel down beside bed and pray to their fairy godfather about it.

it's the institutional disregard of common sense that pisses me off more than anything. Cop I know who does after hour security at my job was telling me that him and his friends have a scheme where they falsify gun range records and hand in sheets to the station saying they use way more ammo than they did while practicing so they can sell the ammo on the side. their bosses know about it. If they don't use all the ammo they are given they receive less next year. So around December the police go falsifying bunch of records and take ammo by the case and just sell the shit to their gun store buddies or personall flip it for huge profit.

the ****ing police are stealing ammo and selling it. shells. tactical rifle ammo. He was telling me like he was doing me a favor in case I want some.

this shit is so ingrained in society that you could never fully remove it even if you wanted to. And I'm not about pursuing impossible solutions. So I'm not saying now and never have said that we need to go take everyone's guns. I'm saying let's have some common sense about the issue and stop trying to pray away a problem that is tangible.