Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Nothing On The Buffalo Mass Shooting?

Collapse

Google Ads

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • DSMoneypit
    replied
    Originally posted by Deschet View Post

    Now. Are you of a mind that part of the reasoning for unfettered gun ownership is to serve as a check to the power of a despotic government. I’d like your comments on the record… sans insult, if possible.
    Concerning this, I think it is well established that an armed populace (to an extent) does have some control over preventing a despotic regime. The key to this is that every dictator ever has removed arms from their citizens.

    Does this mean that armed populaces with no regulations are a guarantee against it? No, I mean we elected Trump. There are a good number of extremist this nation that probably would have supported his attempt to overthrow the government, more than the number that showed up on 1/6. I doubt they would have been successful because a lot more of the armed population wouldn't have supported him. It's those extremists, and the idiot cowards that commit mass murders are a parts of the reason why I am not opposed to things like background checks and waiting periods.

    I'm not even totally against restrictions on semiautomatic rifles. I'm against bans because they won't work in my opinion, and all of the proposals are made by fucking idiots that don't know what they're talking about.

    Leave a comment:


  • DSMoneypit
    replied
    Originally posted by Deschet View Post

    Can you allow for the fact that the exponential advancement of military-grade hardware necessitates making some, if not most, illegal to own for the average citizen?

    Surely, you have a line. Is it stealth aircraft, which poses a massive breech of national security? Is it predator drones? M1 Abrams battle tanks? Nukes? Where is the line? Because, assuming you have one, then you’ve already accepted a degree of gun control.

    Now. Are you of a mind that part of the reasoning for unfettered gun ownership is to serve as a check to the power of a despotic government. I’d like your comments on the record… sans insult, if possible.
    When have I ever advocated for us to own tanks or any of that other shit. I was simply pointing out how fucking hypocritical and ignorant the anti-gun crowd is when it comes to gun laws. I advocaye for background checks, I just want the system fixed. I advocate for waiting periods and stricter requirements for owning firearms. The only thing I am vehemently opposed to is a gun registry. I do not trust our government, they have proven time and again to not care about the rights of its citizens, so I sure as hell don't trust them with a firearm registry. Especially considering when given a partial one, politicians used it to target their constituents by releasing that information to a paper.

    Leave a comment:


  • JTrain
    replied
    Originally posted by Deschet View Post

    It’s funny. I was arguing with a friend on Facebook… because, apparently, I’m that bored. My response was something to the effect of this:



    But? It tracks here. You and I included, it’s fun to make people look silly. We can both do that. Easily. Usually, we refrain. But, the urge is still there. DSM gets fired-up and insults people’s intelligence — ironically mixing up too and to — and, to wit, I’m not immune to it either.

    But, I question how much we really listen/comprehend one another. It’s easy to ask, “WTF can you possibly think this way?” It’s much harder to ponder the “Why” part.
    I have a family full of DSM's. I've posted with him for many years, hes a truly good person...that said, when he starts insulting, name calling and and saying fuck you, Im going to be a little more prickly. In the end, its true, most of us go into topics like this with our minds heavily made up with no room for compromise. Id like to think I understand where his argument is coming from (like I said, my whole family is made up of that ilk)...but understanding and letting a flawed logic go uncontested are two different things. Ive largely kept my mouth shut and not argued gun politics on here through most of these horrible shootings. I've hit my limit with it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Deschet
    replied
    Originally posted by JTrain View Post

    Right, thats all Im doing...just trying to make it look worse than it really is to win a debate on the internet...

    It’s funny. I was arguing with a friend on Facebook… because, apparently, I’m that bored. My response was something to the effect of this:

    The problem is that, for many, our collective minds are already made up, formed in the impenetrable vacuum of our own confirmation bias and fueled by tribalistic and polarizing politics.

    Instead of asking someone WHY they feel a certain way (an inquiry for knowledge and understanding) it’s often phrased as, “How COULD you feel that way?” This puts people on the defensive, and we instinctively fight back when cornered.

    The instinct to corner others with gotcha moments often supersedes genuine effort to understand a conflicting viewpoint. “That’ll show them!” They cry.

    However, I find when people ascribe to this orthodoxy, they’re not actually listening to those with whom they’re conversing, and instead, planning their next attack, in what becomes an ineffective and inevitable chess match.

    You’ve heard me say this before, but if we listen/read 66% of the time and talk 33% of the time, we could get more accomplished in terms of conversation.

    After all, proportionately, we have two eyes and ears but one mouth/thumb (yes, I’m typing with one thumb; also, it supports my analogy). This was first espoused by Epictetus, back when I was a young child, sometime before 135 AD… but it still holds true.

    So… listen to those with whom you disagree rather than pondering how you’ll make them look silly. By plotting your next statement before reading and understanding theirs, you stop truly listening. And, if you’re not actively listening, you’ve already lost before your next gotcha moment lands.
    But? It tracks here. You and I included, it’s fun to make people look silly. We can both do that. Easily. Usually, we refrain. But, the urge is still there. DSM gets fired-up and insults people’s intelligence — ironically mixing up too and to — and, to wit, I’m not immune to it either.

    But, I question how much we really listen/comprehend one another. It’s easy to ask, “WTF can you possibly think this way?” It’s much harder to ponder the “Why” part.

    Leave a comment:


  • sctrojan
    replied
    Originally posted by DSMoneypit View Post

    I swore to quit responding to you, but this response from you was so fucking gutless, it required a rebuttal.

    My point: The government allowed people to own the exact same weapons the military owned with no restrictions until 1934. This included Machine guns, fighters, tanks, etc...

    Your response: "but those weapons sucked back then"

    The Thompson submachine gun was invented in 1915 iirc, was used by the army and marines all the way into the Korean war. The BAR was invented in the 1910s and was used in both world wars. The Browning 1919 (invented in 1919 obviously)30 cal machine gun is still in use today in some nations, and was used in the US military until 60s or 70s. The Browning M2, well that was 1918 and it's still in use today with our military. But sure, the only reason they let civilians have those was because they were garbage and the government didn't ban them until they got better. Wrong dumbass. The government didn't ban them until 1986. And even then they didn't really ban them. You can't buy a newly manufactured one, but you sure as hell can go and buy any of the firearms I mentioned as long as they were made and registered before May of 86. They added regulations to them because of the crime sprees during prohibition. You know, the government passing stupid laws limiting rights, and criminals taking advantage of them. Seems to be a common theme.
    Now we know that DS is a fucking gun nut who won't compromise on anything so the rest of us have to go grab his guns

    He's the guy who won't give in to common sense gun regulation reform that everybody keeps saying is supported by 75% of the nation

    Leave a comment:


  • JTrain
    replied
    Originally posted by Deschet View Post

    Anyone can manipulate statistics, man. LOL…
    Right, thats all Im doing...just trying to make it look worse than it really is to win a debate on the internet...

    Leave a comment:


  • sctrojan
    replied
    Originally posted by DSMoneypit View Post

    As I have pointed out numerous times, the data is there all you have to is bother to do some simple fucking research by using those nations own criminal databases to see for yourself. Those laws haven't been incredibly successful, in fact they haven't done shit really aside from lead to increases in minor crimes (at least that's what their data shows). What the data actually shows, in Australia for example (you can use abs.gov.au/ausstats and dig around for yourself) is that prior to the 1996 gun law, they were already seeing a decline in gun homicides. In 1980, 0.8% of gun deaths were homicides. In 1995 it had dropped to 0.3%. Care to guess what that number is today? I'll make it easy for you it's still roughly the same. There has been an overall drop, but that's due to an almost 50% reduction in suicides since the ban. So I guess there is that.

    You will find similar numbers in the UK, France, Germany, etc...all of the poster childs for the anti-gun debate as proof that gun laws work. All those really do, when you study them, is prove that we are different cultures.

    Would you like to guess what the US's was over the same time period?


    For good or ill, the gun is a part of American culture. We need to find a way to fix this while understanding that we are intrinsically different from those places. But, in my most humble of opinions, the very first step has to be better enforcement of the laws currently on the books. Let's give that a shot, and if in a decade it hasn't worked, then let's look into other options. You, Deschet, and any other rational intelligent adult should know that knee jerk reactions lead to poorly considered options. Enforce the laws we have and give them time to take affect. Hell, I'd even be up for a temporary moratorium on the sale of semi-automatic rifles as long as there is a guarantee in law that it will be rescinded when it's proven to not have done a thing, the same way the last one was handled.
    Dude, just stop. You are demanding that everybody acts and behaves responsibly exactly like you.

    That will never happen so what next?

    Leave a comment:


  • Deschet
    replied
    Originally posted by JTrain View Post
    highest # of school shootings by country, 2022:
    us: 288
    mexico: 8
    s africa: 6
    india: 5
    nigeria: 4
    pakistan: 4
    afghanistan: 4
    canada: 2
    france: 2
    brazil: 2

    Then theres this from 2009-2018:

    Anyone can manipulate statistics, man. LOL…

    Leave a comment:


  • JTrain
    replied
    highest # of school shootings by country, 2022:
    us: 288
    mexico: 8
    s africa: 6
    india: 5
    nigeria: 4
    pakistan: 4
    afghanistan: 4
    canada: 2
    france: 2
    brazil: 2

    Then theres this from 2009-2018:


    Leave a comment:


  • Deschet
    replied
    Originally posted by DSMoneypit View Post

    I swore to quit responding to you, but this response from you was so fucking gutless, it required a rebuttal.

    My point: The government allowed people to own the exact same weapons the military owned with no restrictions until 1934. This included Machine guns, fighters, tanks, etc...

    Your response: "but those weapons sucked back then"

    The Thompson submachine gun was invented in 1915 iirc, was used by the army and marines all the way into the Korean war. The BAR was invented in the 1910s and was used in both world wars. The Browning 1919 (invented in 1919 obviously)30 cal machine gun is still in use today in some nations, and was used in the US military until 60s or 70s. The Browning M2, well that was 1918 and it's still in use today with our military. But sure, the only reason they let civilians have those was because they were garbage and the government didn't ban them until they got better. Wrong dumbass. The government didn't ban them until 1986. And even then they didn't really ban them. You can't buy a newly manufactured one, but you sure as hell can go and buy any of the firearms I mentioned as long as they were made and registered before May of 86. They added regulations to them because of the crime sprees during prohibition. You know, the government passing stupid laws limiting rights, and criminals taking advantage of them. Seems to be a common theme.
    Can you allow for the fact that the exponential advancement of military-grade hardware necessitates making some, if not most, illegal to own for the average citizen?

    Surely, you have a line. Is it stealth aircraft, which poses a massive breech of national security? Is it predator drones? M1 Abrams battle tanks? Nukes? Where is the line? Because, assuming you have one, then you’ve already accepted a degree of gun control.

    Now. Are you of a mind that part of the reasoning for unfettered gun ownership is to serve as a check to the power of a despotic government. I’d like your comments on the record… sans insult, if possible.

    Leave a comment:


  • JTrain
    replied
    Just for my own amusement:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/25/w...a-britain.html
    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41488081
    https://www.npr.org/2022/05/15/109900858
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...2-tally-number

    The US accounts for roughly 5% of the worlds population but is responsible for 31% of all mass shootings in the world. Like I said, a staggering number.

    Leave a comment:


  • JTrain
    replied
    Originally posted by DSMoneypit View Post

    Fuck you dude, the evidence is there, I've shared it so many times on this board when having this same argument with Beamer. The simple facts are these. 1st world nations have similar rates of mass casualty events. Guns aren't used in them as often, which is why they rarely make the news here. You have to go to foreign news sources to get the information. Hell, knife attacks are so bad and so frequent in the UK that they're trying to ban knives. But sure, those are just a once a decade type of crime according to you. As with everything else in the world, narratives matter. The news in the US isn't going to tell you what the average gun homicide rate in Australia was in Australia before they banned semi-automatic weapons and that it didn't change significantly post ban because they know it doesn't support their narrative. Here, I will give you data collected by the Australian government showing just how little effect their ban had on gun crime.

    https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@...2?OpenDocument (this is an official Australian Government report, it was created to provide a data point for use in studying the actual effects of the ban)

    Here is another government report. Unfortunately this is a PDF, but it's still enlightening about the ineffectiveness of the program.

    https://www.aic.gov.au/sites/default...0-05/sr002.pdf

    If you bother to read them, you'll find that pre-ban gun homicides were responsible for approximately 1/5th of all homicides in Australia and 25% of all suicides. Please check the US numbers and let me know how those stack up.

    You'll also see that those numbers remained constant even after the ban. The overall number of them went down, but as the graphs and data points show, so did the number of all homicides. Something that you will find occurring in every 1st world nation over the same time period.

    But you couldn't care less about learning the truth when it comes this, you pretend ro care when kids are killed in a schools but don't give a rats ass when kids are murdered at a far higher rate in urban areas. Fuck you and you're faux moral high ground. Until you've done the actual research that I have into this stuff, you best sit your ass down and shut up.
    None of this says what you think it does. You are used to arguing this shit with folks who wont call you out for cherry picking stats to illustrate your ill-conceived point of view. I'll spell this out clearly for you sweetie pie...No country like ours has the amount of mass shootings and attacks that we do. What you are attempting to do is combine it with "all firearm deaths. This has only been about mass attacks. Now punkin, tell me how many mass shootings have occurred in Australia since implementing stricter gun control. Same with the UK. How many mass shootings have happened since tighter gun law? You know the answer, you just don't want to say it.

    Also, still waiting on you to show me one single data source showing other countries like us have the same amount of mass shootings/attacks that we do.

    Leave a comment:


  • DSMoneypit
    replied
    Originally posted by DPR View Post

    Fighter planes and tanks were first introduced in 1915 according to the googs. And those initial prototypes were almost certainly garbage. When they started to develop them a bit better, the government banned them for personal use. Same with machine guns. The Maxim was introduced in 1884 and handheld automatic rifles didn't make their way into the world until 1892 if I'm reading google correctly. Again, as they became more practical, they were outlawed.

    Naval warships doesn't even dignify a response as that's completely stupid. Only some ultra-rich megalomaniac has the capacity to buy, outfit and staff a naval warship.

    But nice effort at making a dumb point. You're on fire here.
    I swore to quit responding to you, but this response from you was so fucking gutless, it required a rebuttal.

    My point: The government allowed people to own the exact same weapons the military owned with no restrictions until 1934. This included Machine guns, fighters, tanks, etc...

    Your response: "but those weapons sucked back then"

    The Thompson submachine gun was invented in 1915 iirc, was used by the army and marines all the way into the Korean war. The BAR was invented in the 1910s and was used in both world wars. The Browning 1919 (invented in 1919 obviously)30 cal machine gun is still in use today in some nations, and was used in the US military until 60s or 70s. The Browning M2, well that was 1918 and it's still in use today with our military. But sure, the only reason they let civilians have those was because they were garbage and the government didn't ban them until they got better. Wrong dumbass. The government didn't ban them until 1986. And even then they didn't really ban them. You can't buy a newly manufactured one, but you sure as hell can go and buy any of the firearms I mentioned as long as they were made and registered before May of 86. They added regulations to them because of the crime sprees during prohibition. You know, the government passing stupid laws limiting rights, and criminals taking advantage of them. Seems to be a common theme.

    Leave a comment:


  • DSMoneypit
    replied
    Originally posted by JTrain View Post

    No, even with knife attacks, you've lost here. You've yet to show one single data point that shows countries with strict gun law have as many mass attacks/deaths as we do here. Your example was google it, I think France had a knife attack once! Same thing as a gun killing 19 children.

    Fuck you dude, the evidence is there, I've shared it so many times on this board when having this same argument with Beamer. The simple facts are these. 1st world nations have similar rates of mass casualty events. Guns aren't used in them as often, which is why they rarely make the news here. You have to go to foreign news sources to get the information. Hell, knife attacks are so bad and so frequent in the UK that they're trying to ban knives. But sure, those are just a once a decade type of crime according to you. As with everything else in the world, narratives matter. The news in the US isn't going to tell you what the average gun homicide rate in Australia was in Australia before they banned semi-automatic weapons and that it didn't change significantly post ban because they know it doesn't support their narrative. Here, I will give you data collected by the Australian government showing just how little effect their ban had on gun crime.

    https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@...2?OpenDocument (this is an official Australian Government report, it was created to provide a data point for use in studying the actual effects of the ban)

    Here is another government report. Unfortunately this is a PDF, but it's still enlightening about the ineffectiveness of the program.

    https://www.aic.gov.au/sites/default...0-05/sr002.pdf

    If you bother to read them, you'll find that pre-ban gun homicides were responsible for approximately 1/5th of all homicides in Australia and 25% of all suicides. Please check the US numbers and let me know how those stack up.

    You'll also see that those numbers remained constant even after the ban. The overall number of them went down, but as the graphs and data points show, so did the number of all homicides. Something that you will find occurring in every 1st world nation over the same time period.

    But you couldn't care less about learning the truth when it comes this, you pretend ro care when kids are killed in a schools but don't give a rats ass when kids are murdered at a far higher rate in urban areas. Fuck you and you're faux moral high ground. Until you've done the actual research that I have into this stuff, you best sit your ass down and shut up.

    Leave a comment:


  • DPR
    replied
    Originally posted by DSMoneypit View Post

    Saying the patriot act and war on drugs would have sufficed for the 4th. I'm still not sure it is afar as the Second has been reduced. I mean for almost 140 years, you could own any weapon the military could without any restrictions.

    And before people say that's because all the military had were cannons and muskets. No, that is not true. Up until the NFA of 1934, you could own anything (if you could pay for it) the military could. This included naval warships, machine guns, fighter planes, and tanks.
    Fighter planes and tanks were first introduced in 1915 according to the googs. And those initial prototypes were almost certainly garbage. When they started to develop them a bit better, the government banned them for personal use. Same with machine guns. The Maxim was introduced in 1884 and handheld automatic rifles didn't make their way into the world until 1892 if I'm reading google correctly. Again, as they became more practical, they were outlawed.

    Naval warships doesn't even dignify a response as that's completely stupid. Only some ultra-rich megalomaniac has the capacity to buy, outfit and staff a naval warship.

    But nice effort at making a dumb point. You're on fire here.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X