[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Flags  
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

[Return][Go to bottom]

 No.4991[Last 50 Posts]

File: 1590018461969.png (256.62 KB, 880x1024, 55:64, gun.png) ImgOps Google

There's sorta a gun debate going in another thread, but not something I feel is appropriate for me to join as it started somewhere else.

In America, there seem to be two main groups, one favoring gun control -- bringing down the number of guns, basically; one that believes the greater quantity and quality of weapons per citizen -- especially per well trained, law-abiding citizen -- the better the society.  And I think most of us have seen sparks fly as the groups head off.

A question that comes to my mind: are there shared values between these two groups (values related to weapons and the debate, for those who like things spelled out)?  I know, for example, reducing gun deaths is not a shared value -- some deaths are seen as justified and many would say reducing gun deaths (by bad people) simply means an increase in death by other means.  So that's not the metric.  Is there one?

 No.4992

>>4991
I am not so sure that is quite accurate to what comes down to.
My experience is that the pro-gun side argues mainly that a means to resist is necessary to prevent society from infringing on one's rights, at least as far as greater societal concerns go.
Otherwise it's more about the liberty of owning property as a law-abiding citizen who hasn't done anything wrong.
Most arguments I see in favor of guns say there is no harm in having them. That there is no dramatic increase in crime, or such. Most I see that way is in regards to self defense, and having that option.

As to your question, I'm sure they're is some as with most everything.
It gets hard to find I think primarily because of the difference in knowledge on the subject. You get bogged down in details of what can do what.
Don't get me wrong, that is all exceptionally important. But as a result, the conversations typically go down the road of pointing out hypocrisy or the ineffective nature of legislation based on ignorance. Rather than get down to arguing about the merits of the root philosophy, you are stuck with arguing the reality and practically.

Again, I don't want make it sound like this is necessarily a bad thing. These arguments are legitimate. they just don't tend involve what you are talking about here.

 No.4993

I think this is accurate, but the pro-gun side wants you to think that they share that value. When really, all of their talking points seem to indicate that they think that gun deaths are unavoidable and can't be reduced, so we should not try.

 No.4994

>>4993
I would describe it more as removing the tool doesn't mean death will stop.
But, basically.
It's not so much that it will create a better society, having more guns, as much as it is there is nothing gained from getting rid of them

 No.4995

>>4994
They don't agree removing guns will reduce gun deaths, but they also rarely give alternatives for how to reduce them. In fact, many hold political views that work against other alternatives. Which indicates they believe gun deaths are unavoidable.

 No.4996

>are there shared values between these two groups
I think both sides want to reduce the number of innocent people who die from criminal violence and to avoid tyranny.

I'd say that many of the disagreements are not due to fundamental differences in values but instead are due to ignorance and prejudice against anything that isn't a traditional hunting gun.  E.g., anti-gun politician Carolyn McCarthy sponsored legislation that would ban barrel shrouds (on certain types of guns), but she didn't even know what barrel shrouds are, never mind articulating a coherent reason for banning them.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U

 No.4997

>>4995
Depends on the policies, I suppose. Much of what is proposed wouldn't do anything, so I guess that's what they are pointing out.
As to limiting gun deaths, I imagine it's dependent on what you are talking about.
Most gun people I talk to our in favor of teachers being allowed to carry and defend themselves, which would seem to me to me a solution that'd lower deaths.
For more general crimes, a lot of the pro gun people I talk to our libertarian, who won to end for on drugs, which absolutely would lower the rate of gun deaths.

 No.4998

>>4997
Allowing teachers to carry guns would only lower gun deaths in a contrived fantasy scenario dreamed up by a gun advocate. Because it's clear to most other people that introducing a number of guns to an area will not reduce gun deaths. Like, how does that make any sense to a person unless they ascribe to a ridiculous "good guy with a gun" mentality? You can't solve an issue about guns with more guns.

 No.4999

>>4998
That is your opinion, I suppose. I disagree, obviously.

Seems to me rather obvious that arming would-be victims gives them the chance of stopping there attacker. Chance, sure, but chances add up, and so I have no reason whatsoever to doubt that chance would result in fewer deaths during these events.
Truthfully, I find it rather strange how you would do vehemently and with such certainty deny this.

 No.5000

>>4999
But that's faulty for a few reasons. One being you draw a line between "victim" and "attacker" as if those are intrinsic values to people, or that one cannot become the other. That none of these teachers might become shooters if you arm them. You also assume that all "victims" would be able to be responsible enough with their gun and not allow their weapon to be taken or cause more collateral deaths or injuries to themselves or innocent people in their attempt to stop the attacker. Unless you give each teacher EXTENSIVE gun training on parr with that of a police officer or military officer, this isn't going to be the case. And this isn't taking into the account the age of most teachers or even their temperament.

So yeah, I deny this idea. It's predicated on too many fantasy scenarios where someone, a "bad guy", tries to shoot people and a "good guy" goes all John Wick on them and saves the day with little to no collateral. It's unrealistic and not really how people react to shootings. The only sure fire way to prevent shootings is to make fire-arms harder to get, and ensure that only people responsible, knowledgeable and stable enough can get them.

 No.5001

>>5000
>One being you draw a line between "victim" and "attacker" as if those are intrinsic values to people, or that one cannot become the other.
They are nonetheless lines one can draw. There is a clear distinction between a murderer, and the individual they murder.
> That none of these teachers might become shooters if you arm them.
Might, yes. It is indeed possible. It's also unlikely. Significantly less likely. Mass shooting events are already exceptionally rare. Individuals are unique among hundreds of thousands.
I have absolutely no cause to believe the number of teachers who would turn mass shooters outweighs the benefit.

>You also assume that all "victims" would be able to responsible with their gun and not allow their weapon to be taken or cause more collateral deaths or injuries to themselves or innocent people in their attempt to stop the attacker.
Not so.
I presume that the odds are in favor of that not being the case.
That most will be responsible, as most gun owners are. That even the irresponsible ones aren't going to hurt anyone else, or even themselves, as most irresponsible gun owners do not do.
Their weapon being taken by someone already armed is of little consequence.

As to injuring others or themselves during a shooter event, I could hardly bring myself to care. If a bull's in a china shop, I'm hardly going to scream at the guy stopping said bull from wrecking everything for breaking a few plates in the process of tacking said bull.
Again; The trade seems well worth it.

> It's unrealistic and not really how people react to shootings.
Ah yes, of course, it's "unrealistic", which is why there's countless of self defense shooting situations all over the country. Of course, every single case around the US where someone's defended themselves with a fire arm is clearly made up, fictional, and not at all realistic...

It's not a "fantasy scenario". It happens all the time. I get that you have major biases, but let's not start denying reality, please.

 No.5002

>>5001
Don't accuse me of "denying reality" when all you have is anecdotal evidence, please. Just because people have defended themselves with guns does not necessarily mean that doing so is easy or common. You need to back up what your saying before you accuse anyone else of "denying reality."

>As to injuring others or themselves during a shooter event, I could hardly bring myself to care.

I think this really says all that needs to be said. You aren't actually interested in lessening the gun deaths if you are actively saying you do not care if introducing more guns could lead to more deaths. Our goal here is to protect innocent people. First and formost. Not to getting a sick headshot on a "killer". And if you do not agree then we are arguing two different things.

 No.5003

File: 1590066622549.jpg (26.81 KB, 645x429, 215:143, trolley.w710.h473.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>5002
>>As to injuring others or themselves during a shooter event, I could hardly bring myself to care.
>You aren't actually interested in lessening the gun deaths if you are actively saying you do not care if introducing more guns could lead to more deaths.
Umm... please re-read the sentence immediately following the one that you quoted.  Handsome Iguana is saying that allowing teachers to be armed would be like pulling the switch in the Trolley Problem.  He is admitting that it would lead to the deaths of some people who wouldn't have otherwise died but that it would save a greater number of people.

 No.5004

File: 1590068597366.png (235.46 KB, 265x419, 265:419, Inky_schoolgirl.png) ImgOps Google

>>5000
>Unless you give each teacher EXTENSIVE gun training on parr with that of a police officer or military officer, this isn't going to be the case. And this isn't taking into the account the age of most teachers or even their temperament.
The idea isn't to mandate that EVERY teacher carry a gun.  I'd guess that maybe 10% of teachers would end up carrying in suburban areas.  Some teachers are military veterans who already have extensive experience in armed defense.  And the firearms training for police isn't really that time-consuming.  I'd guess that at least a few teachers in most districts would sign up for such training if it were offered at no cost to them.

And let's not forget that, back in the day, students in high-school rifle clubs would routinely bring their rifle to school.  And there were fewer mass shootings in schools then than now.

 No.5005

>>5002
"Anecdotal evidence" quite literally demonstrates your absurd idea of the things being unable to happen at all false.
The fact that people have demonstrated themselves, demonstrates that people can and will defend themselves.
You being unable to accept this reality is ultimately your own issue, not mine.
>Just because people have defended themselves with guns does not necessarily mean that doing so is easy or common
Good thing I've never once said that.
I said it gives the chance. Very different.

> You aren't actually interested in lessening the gun deaths if you are actively saying you do not care if introducing more guns could lead to more deaths.
You say this because you disagree my proposal would lower gun deaths. I am not convinced that is the case. I've stated why I believe it would lower gun deaths. You refuse to accept my intentions, and fabricate your own.

If you can say this so can I: You are not interested in lowering deaths. Your goal is not to protect innocent people. Your goal is just control and getting rid of something you find "scary".

 No.5006

>>5003
Not even quite that, honestly. What I'm saying is that the people who may die as a result, would have also died regardless in a shooting event.

If I walk in to a store intent on breaking every single plate in that store, an employee breaking a plate in the process of tackling me hardly matters. I was going to break that plate, after all.

 No.5007

>>5005
>>4991
As it happens, OP, this is also probably why "shared value" is never met...
It's a bit hard to claim "shared values" when your opposition actively denies your intent and beliefs.

If you're told by the other guy, "You do not actually believe what you are telling me you believe", there's not really much you can do, sadly.

 No.5008

>>5004
I'm not sure why the focus on teachers when school shootings are becoming less of a problem exactly BECAUSE they have put tougher restrictions on schools. I'm not sure why you guys are arguing that the opposite of what solved the problem will solve the problem. It seems more like you're pushing an agenda to keep your favorite hobby.

>>5003
But this analogy, by it's very nature, assumes guns deaths are the train. Something unavoidable that can't be stopped. When we propose not letting the train leave the station at all.

>>5007
One side is saying "We want less people to be shot. Less guns would make that possible." And the other is saying "Hey, people are gonna die by guns. You can't avoid it, so let's just add more." It's clearly a conflict in desired results.

 No.5009

>>5008
>And the other is saying "Hey, people are gonna die by guns. You can't avoid it, so let's just add more." It's clearly a conflict in desired results.
Good thing that's not actually what is being said, and is just a strawman.

What's actually being said is "These things tend happen in gun free zones. Maybe if people were allowed to bring the tools needed to defend themselves, fewer people would die"

 No.5010

>>5009
"People are bringing guns into no-gun zones and shooting people. Clearly the problem is a lack of guns." Doesn't really make any sense. How can guns be the solution if the problem was that someone... had a gun?

The solution is making guns harder to get unless you can prove you are responsible, knowledgeable and stable enough to use them responsibly. And make sure gun-free zones are kept that way with better security and preventative measures.

There is no scenario where the solution to this problem is MORE guns unless again you are imagining a contrived John Wick-esque scenario.

 No.5011

>>5010
People with hostile intent are going to places where they can be certain people cannot defend themselves.
Letting people in those areas defend themselves might very well mean those areas are targeted less, and when they are targeted, fewer die as a result.
This makes perfect sense to me.
>if the problem was that someone... had a gun?
Because that few on what the problem is is exceptionally reductionist.
It's an emotional reaction, not a logical one.
You conflate the bad action to simply be The result of the tool. You assume the addition of more of those same tools will net the same result because of this.

If guns did nothing, police wouldn't bother carrying them.
Shooting events would just go on forever, until the shooter got bored.
Again, this does not reflect reality.

>There is no scenario where the solution to this problem is MORE guns unless again you are imagining a contrived John Wick-esque scenario.
You assuming to be a contrite John wick scenario because you are emotionally biased.
Again, your emotional denial of reality does not reflect what actually happens in the real world.
Countless self-defense cases have happened around the country.

you go so far in your blinds denial of reality that you not only insist that it can't happen, but people can't even believe that it could happen.
You insist people's work road gun and offered this as a solution to lessen gun deaths are lying, because you assumed it so impossible that not even they, proposed it as a solution, could believe it.

How am I even supposed to argue this? Not only do you deny reality, you deny me the ability to believe what I say I do.

 No.5012

File: 1590099253195.jpg (61.56 KB, 392x421, 392:421, gun-control-81.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>5008
>school shootings are becoming less of a problem exactly BECAUSE they have put tougher restrictions on schools.
[citation needed, especially in regards to causation]

> I'm not sure why you guys are arguing that the opposite of what solved the problem will solve the problem.
Perhaps because we don't agree that gun-control laws solved the problem?  Or perhaps because we believe that it created worse problems than it solved?

>It seems more like you're pushing an agenda to keep your favorite hobby.
What do you hope to accomplish by saying something like that?  If my argument is flawed, then it's flawed regardless of whether I'm "pushing an agenda to keep [my] favorite hobby", and you should point out its flaws without resorting to personal attacks.  And conversely, if my argument is sound, then it is sound regardless of whether I'm "pushing an agenda to keep [my] favorite hobby" and you should reconsider your own views in light of it.  So how is your accusation that I am "pushing an agenda" anything other than inflammatory noise?  I suggest that you instead assume that other posters in this thread are arguing in good faith.

>Something unavoidable that can't be stopped.
Unfortunately, there will always be bad people who do bad things.  We can try to reduce the number of murders, but it will never be completely stopped in the foreseeable future.

>And the other is saying "Hey, people are gonna die by guns. You can't avoid it, so let's just add more."
That is a most uncharitable (mis)interpretation of other posts in this thread.

>>5010
>The solution is making guns harder to get unless you can prove you are responsible, knowledgeable and stable enough to use them responsibly.
Unfortunately that won't completely stop murders or even gun murders.  Many mass shooters showed no clear signs of mental instability or criminal intent.  With presently available technology, one cannot prevent all would-be mass shooters from buying guns without also stomping on the civil rights of many law-abiding citizens.

>And make sure gun-free zones are kept that way with better security and preventative measures.
I agree with that.  So-called "gun-free zones" without any enforcement are the worst of both worlds.  Either people should be allowed to carry, or there should be metal detectors and security to physically deny entry to anyone armed.  Pic related.

>There is no scenario where the solution to this problem is MORE guns
Sure there is!  If more good guys have guns, that will reduce the number of murders that mass shooters can commit before getting neutralized.

 No.5013

>>5011
>Letting people in those areas defend themselves might very well mean those areas are targeted less

But it could equally mean that shootings happen more often because there are more guns in the area. Places like sporting events and concerts are known to break out in violence without guns. Guns being there will just exacerbate that.

>If guns did nothing, police wouldn't bother carrying them.

Actually, the police are a good example of people who are irresponsible with guns. What with all the shooting of innocent people going on [strike]lately[/strike] for decades that are only just now getting the public attention they deserve.

I have been offering a solution to this problem. In every post in this thread I've said the same words.

1) Make guns harder to get unless you can prove you are responsible, knowledgeable and stable enough to use them.

2) Keep guns out of gun-free zones as much as possible by improving security and preventative measures.

These two things are logical steps to solve this issue. Adding more guns is illogical and motivated by a bias toward them. And you should not be against 1 or 2 unless you do not meet the conditions for 1. Which, out of good faith, I am assuming you do.

 No.5014

>>5012
You could always show that they haven't decreased if you've got the stats for that. Its possible I could be wrong, but the last high profile case of a school shooting was in 2012.

>If more good guys have guns,
Your "good guys" vs "bad guys" mentally is completely wrong-headed and more than a little troubling. Who qualifies as a "good guy"? Do you put the police in that category, because there are plenty of people who would tell you otherwise. Most of them having browner skin than yours.

You don't get to decide who is a "good guy" with a gun and who is a "bad guy" with a gun and decide that those two states are inherent and unchanging. There's too much room for bias in that distinction, especially along the lines of race, class and other things that divide us. One person might see a guy with a MAGA hat armed to the teeth and think "there's a good guy here to protect us." and another might might think. "Move slowly so this guy doesn't SHOOT ME FOR NO REASON BECAUSE I'M BLACK."

 No.5015

>>5013
The individuals who go on these shooting rampages are not common.
If they were, even how many firearms are in the country, these events would be hourly.
Most people are not sociopathic Mass murderers.

>Actually, the police are a good example of people who are irresponsible with guns.
So, what, get rid of their guns too?
How do you think that is going to end up?

>1) Make guns harder to get unless you can prove you are responsible, knowledgeable and stable enough to use them.
How will this prevent firearms from being obtained illegally by the same people?
As I understand, much are already procured that way. Either stolen, or from someone they know who can have guns, yet gives them access.

What makes you think this solution will actually do anything outside of inconveniencing law abiding citizens? Government hasn't exactly given me much confidence as is especially with things like fast and furious.
With that one, they straight up gave guns to criminals.
Their track record is rather horrible.

>2) Keep guns out of gun-free zones as much as possible by improving security and preventative measures.
Security requires force to back it up.
How are you going to improve security without bringing in somebody with arms?
Somebody can just bring a gun through a metal detector, if there is nobody armed to stop them.

>Adding more guns is illogical and motivated by a bias toward them.
So you say, I disagree. I would say the reverse is true.

But at least now we are getting beyond the nonsense claim that's I don't even believe what I am saying.

>And you should not be against 1 or 2 unless you do not meet the conditions for 1. Which, out of good faith, I am assuming you do.
Ultimatums are unconvincing.
I have my reasons for disagreeing with both of your items, insulting remarks are not among them.
There is certainly more than one reason beyond that to oppose what you stated thus far. Your hostile assumptions for the only reason you believe to disagree is not conducted to a healthy dialogue to say the least.

 No.5016

>>5014
>Who qualifies as a "good guy"?
Somebody who isn't murdering a bunch of people in this case.
It seems to me to be a pretty easy distinction.

>Most of them having browner skin than yours
Yeah, let's start assuming the race of people on an anonymous image board purely because of the opinions they hold.
That's not going to be bigoted at all.

>One person might see a guy with a MAGA hat armed to the teeth and think "there's a good guy here to protect us." and another might might think. "Move slowly so this guy doesn't SHOOT ME FOR NO REASON BECAUSE I'M BLACK."
As with determining anything else when it comes to morality, it is not based on who you are. What color your skin is. What political hat you wear.
It is based on action.

If the MAGA hat wearing person has done nothing, he isn't a bad guy.
The other person's just paranoid. Making presumptions not based on what somebody has done, but purely because they disagree with their politics.

This is often referred to as bigotry

 No.5017

>>5014
>Who qualifies as a "good guy"?
Someone who isn't committing a violent crime.

>You don't get to decide who is a "good guy" with a gun and who is a "bad guy" with a gun and decide that those two states are inherent and unchanging.
I never claimed that those two states are inherent and unchanging.  I admit that someone can easily switch between them.

 No.5018

File: 1590110049326.jpg (497.17 KB, 768x1024, 3:4, Futaba.Akane.full.1661875.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>5013
>Places like sporting events and concerts are known to break out in violence without guns. Guns being there will just exacerbate that.
Alternatively, some argue that "an armed society is a polite society".

>>5014
>You could always show that they haven't decreased if you've got the stats for that.
I don't any evidence one way or the other.  And it seems neither do you.  So, as far as I'm concerned, that leaves the epistemic status of the claim as "unknown".

>>5015
>Security requires force to back it up.
>How are you going to improve security without bringing in somebody with arms?
Maybe Beautiful Butterfly is okay with dedicated armed security?  What do you think of the idea of making schools actually be a gun-free zone by physically enforcing it (with metal detectors / x-ray scanners and armed security) at all entrances and repealing the law that makes it illegal to carry on school property?  Seems like a reasonable compromise to me.  Or at least it's much better than what is done now (criminalizing ordinary citizens who accidentally carry a gun into a school while not doing jack shit to stop actual mass shooters).

 No.5019

>>5018
Then I would respond to him "There is no scenario where the solution to this problem is MORE guns unless again you are imagining a contrived John Wick-esque scenario.".
Along with mention the "good guy with a gun" lot.

As to what I think, I think extra security over what already exists is unnecessarily expensive, personally.
I think better crisis training would be preferable. Duck and cover is a terrible response to such a situation. A better alternative would be quick escape. I think that would have a larger impact, personally, then would heightened security. But, then, both could also be done.

 No.5020

File: 1590112685407.png (325.88 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, platelet-1.png) ImgOps Google

>>5019
OK, but what do you think about the idea of physically enforcing a gun-free zone for schools?  Seems like it would pretty much solve the school-shooting problem.  But it does have some problems:
- If implemented poorly, it might lead to long lines getting in to the school, and the students in those lines would then be sitting ducks.
- It might be degrading to have to go thru those security checkpoints everyday.
- It would impede having a school rifle club.

 No.5021

File: 1590113283563.jpg (29.77 KB, 480x480, 1:1, platelet_42317915_21585664….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>5019
>>5020
Oh, did you edit your post, or did I somehow manage to completely miss your 2nd paragraph lol?

 No.5022

>>5016
>Yeah, let's start assuming the race of people on an anonymous image

Point taken. It just the majority of gun advocates are white with a certain political background that I was tempted to assume. But I will be more cautious.

But just as you don't want me assuming your race, you should not assume mine. You don't know whether or not I'm a member of one of the groups that Trump and his supporters have marginalized and vilified openly, and thus would have good reason to fear someone in that particular brand of silly hat.

Let's flip the script on this. Let's say the person we see is a big black guy in a hoodie. To judge this person based on his appearance would be bigotry. I assume we can both agree on this.

However, it's clear that this DOES happen and many, many people have been wrongly shot because of the judgement of the gunholder that this is someone to be suspicious of. So leaving the judgement of who is a "good guy" or "bad guy" up to whoever has a gun in that instance is an insane proposition.

 No.5023

>>5017
Someone who isn't committing a crime at this moment, or who will never commit a violent crime? You can see how someone can be one and not the other, right? The majority of mass shooters were not committing any crime until right up to the point they shot a bunch of people.

>>5018
>"an armed society is a polite society"

What is this based on?

 No.5024

>>5020
>>5021
i edited it. Sorry. I kind of forgot about the question as I was going through the first part

Personally I would like to get rid as far as schools are concerned gun free zones. That's mostly because it only seems to affect adults anyway. It's not like in most states hard as I am aware kids can be packing a Glock or have a rifle over their shoulder. So, it only really affects adults with CCW licenses

Anything that isn't physically enforced, in any case, is completely worthless. Without somebody to enforce it, you are just hoping people abide by it, and criminals aren't known for their self control.

 No.5025

>>5015
>So, what, get rid of their guns too?

No, it was just to illustrate that even people we entrust to keep the peace and uphold the law can abuse their power and use guns irresponsibly. And so it's not a good idea to give that ability to every doofus who can stumble into a gun shop.

>How will this prevent firearms from being obtained illegally by the same people?

There are ways to prevent that, but that's a completely different debate. The vast, VAST majority of mass shooters obtained their guns legally.

 No.5026

>>5022
Both Asians and blacks have directly benefited from the right to keep and bear arms.
If there is such a racial divide, that's a sad thing. Minorities ought to care, considering hey haven't been ignored or abused by the state before.

>You don't know whether or not I'm a member of one of the groups that Trump and his supporters have marginalized and vilified openly, and thus would have good reason to fear someone in that particular brand of silly hat.
That would be irrelevant anyway.
Again, actions, not a hat.

And this is obviously leaving aside disagreements weed likely have on whether or not Trump or his supporters have actually done that.

>However, it's clear that this DOES happen and people have been wrongly shot because of the judgement of the gunholder that this is someone to be suspicious of.
if it does happen, when it happens, then individual should be arrested in prosecuted to the full extent of the law as a murderer.

I have absolutely no idea why you would assume I would think otherwise. This would be quite obvious I think to anybody

Again, and I must say it is quite annoying that I have to repeat this, actions.
You judge on actions not appearances.
Judging solely off of appearances like that is bigotry.

In this instance that you put forward, what happens is flatly and objectively murder.
no actions had you listed took place for the shooter to believe be other guy was a threat to him beyond bigotry.

Good guy: not a murderer
Bad guy: murderer.
It is that easy

 No.5027

File: 1590115312175.jpg (79.95 KB, 480x627, 160:209, 1485266122120.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>5023
>Someone who isn't committing a crime at this moment, or who will never commit a violent crime?
Someone who isn't committing a violent crime at the relevant moments.

>You can see how someone can be one and not the other, right?
Of course!

>>5024
>i edited it. Sorry.
Ah, I see.  The thread auto-update doesn't load edits, that's how I got confused.

>So, it only really affects adults with CCW licenses
And those who openly carry!  I haven't seen anyone openly carry (other than police and security guards) in years, but maybe it's more popular in rural areas.

 No.5028

>>5026
And where would you put George Zimmerman on this "good guy", "bad guy" scale? Not everyone agrees where he would lie, and that's a very important distinction to have when discussing weapons designed to end lives and who should have them.

And this is just one example, there are many many more.

 No.5029

>>5025
I find this all more reason to ensure the citizens have the means to resist a government.
Giving the government a Monopoly on violence has historically ended rather poorly.
You are right that not all police are good. And fact, I would go as far as to say, a great percentage of the police vs the common population, are bad people, largely due to the way the system does not allow them to be held to account, and further facilitate there abuses.

>There are ways to prevent that, but that's a completely different debate.
no it is most certainly not. We were discussing how to lessen gun violence.
your proposal wouldn't do anything to lessen gun violence, it would only take firearms out of law abiding citizens hands. They could still procure those firearms elsewhere. This is the entire staple of the argument at hand.
I am unwilling to accept your dodge do this evidently inconvenient questioning.

>The vast, VAST majority of mass shooters obtained their guns legally.
I am not so sure that is the case, but, if you are so evidently confident in it, and wish to provide evidence for that claim, go for it.

 No.5030

>>5022
>So leaving the judgement of who is a "good guy" or "bad guy" up to whoever has a gun in that instance is an insane proposition.
I dunno, seems like a pretty simple judgement to make in the case of school shooting:
[ ] Going around randomly shooting kids at school => definitely BAD GUY
[ ] Gun holstered => probably GOOD GUY
[ ] Gun in hand, but not fired yet => NEEDS MORE INPUT

 No.5031

>>5028
Zimmerman shouldn't have been following trayvon. However, I will give credit to the man for waiting until after he was getting his head beating against the concrete to shoot the guy.
He waited until an action of clear hostile and violent intend was taken to shoot. As you should.

That is why ultimately his case was self-defense after all.

 No.5032

>>5027
True, I always forget about open carry, mostly because of my area it's almost never done even though it is legal.

 No.5033

>>5031
We have no way of knowing who started the physical altercation, because it was Zimmerman's word against a person who is no longer alive to give his side of the story. To me, it seems like making it out to be self-defense can (and did) make his actions seem justifiable even if it was not a completely accurate account of what happened. Especially considering he was asked by police dispatch not to follow Martin, and did so anyway.

But this is getting into a different argument. My point was that You cannot trust all so called "good guy with guns" to be completely unbiased and not bigoted when choosing when to use their gun. This should be obvious to anyone.

>>5029
>, but, if you are so evidently confident in it, and wish to provide evidence for that claim, go for it.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/476461/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-legality-of-shooters-weapons/

82 of the mass shootings in the United States between 1982 and February 2020 involved weapons which were obtained legally; a clear majority. Only 16 incidents involved guns that were obtained illegally.

Discussing how to prevent illegal acquiring of guns is a separate debate from discussing the prevention of mass shootings.

 No.5034

>>5033
The court case as I understand it very much suggest that trayvon started the physical altercation.
If you disagree with that, that's your business. I have no reason to, thus the moral question that you presented with that particular case is not something I care about.

>Especially considering he was asked by police dispatch not to follow Martin, and did so anyway.
As I recall from the case, he did actually do as dispatch told him, and stopped following. From what I remember, in was after this point that trayvon confronted him.
if you've got a reference to the court case that says otherwise, I'm more than willing to entertain it though.

>My point was that You cannot trust all so called "good guy with guns" to be completely unbiased and not bigoted when choosing when to use their gun. This should be obvious to anyone.
I can with the parameters I have laid out. Again, it is based on actions, not prejudiced.
Citing a case we're as far as I can tell with the evidence from the case that I have seen was a clear cut case of self defense doesn't change that aspect.
Again, what determines a bad guy at its most simple level is somebody who murders. I do not judge based on external factors there.

 No.5035

>>5033
Do you have another source? This one's only giving me the flat data, without what they're using to measure it. Rather annoying. I guess the site expects you to sign up for the info.

>Discussing how to prevent illegal acquiring of guns is a separate debate from discussing the prevention of mass shootings.
Only if you presume people who are intending to break the law will also not break the law to acquire the tools they desire to break the law.
Personally, I don't think that's realistic

 No.5036

This thread got long fast.  That usually doesn't happen.  I may not reply to all the posts, but I will try.

>>4992
>the liberty of owning property
OK.
>get bogged down in details
Yeah, I can see that.

>>4996
>reduce the number of innocent people who die from criminal violence
OK.  That makes sense.  I don't think...anyone would overtly say otherwise, anyway.

>tyranny
That's a harder one.  Tyranny is by definition bad, so I wouldn't expect people to come out in favor.  But states are sometimes defined as having a near monopoly on the use of violence, and it's not clear to me the role of private arms in resisting government.

(OK, have to go, more later.)

 No.5037

File: 1590145943457.png (412.54 KB, 782x410, 391:205, futaba-akane-195b4b65290d1….png) ImgOps Google

>>5036
> it's not clear to me the role of private arms in resisting government.
Sometimes a tyrant usurps power and takes over the state apparatus.  E.g., the tyrant Maduro in Venezuela.  Then the citizen militia can help restore the rightful leader to power.

And sometimes a government becomes so intolerable that the people decide to overthrow it and create a new government.  E.g., the American Revolution.

 No.5038

File: 1590146755431.jpg (179.32 KB, 550x777, 550:777, kitsune_in_kimono_by_alyso….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>5035
>Only if you presume people who are intending to break the law will also not break the law to acquire the tools they desire to break the law.
It took me a second to connect the dots here, so let me spell it out for anyone else who might be get confused: Even if most mass shooters currently acquire their weapons legally, there is no reason to believe that they won't switch to acquiring them illegally if the law is changed to make it harder for them to acquire weapons legally.

 No.5039

>>5036
> But states are sometimes defined as having a near monopoly on the use of violence,
This is what you want to avoid. Thus, the role of private arms.
Whenever a state has monopoly on violence, bad things happen.

 No.5040

>>5034
The jury was also going on Zimmerman's account, because again, Martin was too dead to testify. But you're still comically missing the point.

My point is that racists and racism still exist, and that minority people are often shot by said racists unjustly. And these racists tend to be gun fanatics. So leaving the decision of who is and isn't a "good guy" or "bad guy" up to whoever is holding a gun and in the vicinity isn't a comforting proposition to make to anyone who isn't white. If you can't see that, you are being willfully ignorant.

>>5035
https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/san-bernardino-shooting/more-80-percent-guns-used-mass-shootings-obtained-legally-n474441

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/national/mass-shootings-in-america/

https://www.kunc.org/post/1982-74-percent-mass-shooters-obtained-their-guns-legally#stream/0

If the majority of mass shootings are committed with legally purchased firearms (which these statistics show) then discussing how to deal with illegal firearm acquisition is a separate discussion. We are discussing preventing mass shootings. I'm going to assume you are not trying to divert the argument intentionally, but it's still not relevant to what we are currently discussing.

 No.5041

>>5040
And you are missing my point; Whether or not someone is "racist" is irrelevant.
Actions matter.
I keep saying that, yet it keeps being ignored for some reason. Maybe you think beliefs are actions, or something. I don't know.

>And these racists tend to be gun fanatics
Call me skeptical, but, a lot of the racists I've seen have been explicitly against gun rights for people they don't like.
Certainly not "fanatic" at that point.

>So leaving the decision of who is and isn't a "good guy" or "bad guy" up to whoever is holding a gun and in the vicinity isn't a comforting proposition to make to anyone who isn't white
Except that isn't what we're leaving that to. We've said that multiple times. You've ignored that, multiple times, preferring to make up your own argument, instead of addressing what was said.
It comes across as really dishonest.

Let me give it to you easy:
Murderer = bad guy
Not murderer = good guy

 No.5042

>>5040
Interesting data. The Kunc.org lot seems to do the best of compiling it, alongside giving a nice link to a separate article on 'what is a mass shooting'.
I suspect this is where the main difference on what I had understood for the events came from.
In this case it's logged as any over 4 people, with gang incidents being removed. Personally, I think that's a little loose, but that's probably just me.
I wish it'd give what constitutes "legally acquired" for them, though. But, this is always a problem with statistics. Especially political ones.

>If the majority of mass shootings are committed with legally purchased firearms (which these statistics show) then discussing how to deal with illegal fire arm purchases is a separate argument.
Only if, again, you presume they wouldn't be simply purchased illegally.
I have absolutely no reason to assume that is the case.
I do not think illegality of a tool used for an already illegal purpose is going to stop anyone.

 No.5043

File: 1590174123037.png (553.94 KB, 600x800, 3:4, foxgirl-05dildor68w4qo.png) ImgOps Google

>>5040
>If the majority of mass shootings are committed with legally purchased firearms (which these statistics show) then discussing how to deal with illegal fire arm purchases is a separate argument.
I thought you were arguing in favor of laws to try to prevent would-be shooters from legally acquiring firearms?  And in that case, discussing illegal acquisitions would be very relevant, as I argued previously in >>5038.

 No.5047

File: 1590187443130.png (173.32 KB, 1280x853, 1280:853, 2041687.png) ImgOps Google

>>5037
>Sometimes a tyrant usurps power and takes over the state apparatus.  

I see.  State apparatus will certainly call such a group domestic terrorists.  To be in favor, someone would have to think a group of armed citizens more likely to be just than regular police/(military?).  Opinions on that will probably vary.  Then it opens the question of, I guess, whether there should be a number of private folks who could match the government.  I've always figured a future American civil war would require fracturing government powers, we are thinking instead of a case of civil war against a unified government.

>And sometimes a government becomes so intolerable that the people decide to overthrow it and create a new government.  E.g., the American Revolution.

The US American territories could rebel with similar justification as the British colonies that became America.  (They do not have constitutional rights -- not sure how the gun debates go in those places).  Like America, they would not need enough arms to overpower the US, just enough to make the places annoying to hold.

>>5039
Hmm...you would say, society is better when people are exposed to institutions more violent than the state.  Maybe I don't quite understand.

 No.5048

File: 1590189381311.jpeg (215.22 KB, 1280x1024, 5:4, aaaa.jpeg) ImgOps Google

>>5007
>a bit hard to claim "shared values"
The argument for the past dozen posts has been on the effect of arming teachers.  The shared goal is reducing mass shootings, especially in schools.  As someone said earlier, it's easy to get weighed down in the details -- fortunately most of us have not experienced mass shootings, often people have to guess how this or that changes the outcome.  Seems how to judge collateral damage is not as shared.

 No.5049

>>5047
>Hmm...you would say, society is better when people are exposed to institutions more violent than the state.  Maybe I don't quite understand.
No, rather I think that people being able to resist a government, which would require violence as violence is ultimately the supreme authority from which all other authority is derived, means a government is less likely to trampled your rights.

 No.5050

File: 1590189669822.jpg (122.45 KB, 1024x768, 4:3, 1586736042918.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>5047
> To be in favor, someone would have to think a group of armed citizens more likely to be just than regular police/(military?).
More just than the well-paid top-ranking officers, not necessarily more just than the grunts.  The military and police forces have a well-established hierarchy, and if the top levels get corrupted, the lower levels will usually just fall in line and carry out their orders, unless civilian resistance is fierce enough that a large percentage of the grunts decide they'd rather switch sides and fight against the tyrant.

Pic unrelated.

 No.5051

>>5041
It's not irrelevant. Beliefs and outlooks influence your actions. I'm not ignoring anything. You keep insisting those things are separate when they aren't. A racist is more likely to see any black person as a "bad guy" and are going to act on that belief. It's already happening. All over the place. To ignore that is to be willfully ignorant.

Also, you metric of "murderer" or "not murderer" isn't even reliable if someone can shoot a kid going to buy some skittles and be labeled "not a murderer" by a jury because of that dead person's skin color. You are trying to pretend we live in a world where race has no bearing on anything which isn't the case.

>>5042
>>5043
I suspect gang data isn't included because most gang violence targets other gang members and gang violence that harms innocent people, while it does happen, is comparatively less common.

There... isn't many other ways to take "legally acquired", here. Even if they purchased them through a private party through the gunshow loophole, then... that's still legal.

>Only if, again, you presume they wouldn't be simply purchased illegally.

That's a hypothetical outside the scope of our discussion. We are discussing how to prevent mass shootings, the majority of which are done with legally acquired weapons. "Well, they could get them illegally." might be technically true, it's dealing with a hypothetical future scenario we have no way of quantifying, let alone speculating on. You would need to make it harder to get guns illegally too, but that's a different discussion because, again WE ARE TALKING ABOUT MASS SHOOTINGS AND THE MAJORITY OF MASS SHOOTINGS ARE DONE WITH LEGALLY ACQUIRED GUNS.

 No.5052

>>5048
The trouble is, within that argument, it was out right denied  that people could believe that arming teachers would lower gun violence.

It gets a little hard there if you have one side doubting what you claim to believe, and instead substituting it with their own

 No.5053

>>5050
Unfortunately, for the grunt, "just following orders" is a compelling reason. As much as we would like to pretend otherwise

 No.5054

>>5051
>A racist is more likely to see any black person as a "bad guy" and are going to act on that belief.
And if they do soley because of the skin color and their presumptuous about that person not on anything they've actually done, again, as I have said several times now and you conveniently ignore repeatedly, that would be murder.

We judge on actions.
It is not a crime to be racist, nor is it a crime to be black.
Thus, if somebody shoot somebody just because they are black, or just because they are racist, they are a murderer, and would be charged as such.

Again; murderer = bad guy

>Also, you metric of "murderer" or "not murderer" isn't even reliable if someone can shoot a kid going to buy some skittles and be labeled "not a murderer" by a jury because of that dead person's skin color
Good thing that's not what fucking happened, and I already said as much.

Why do you assume he's completely guiltless just because of his skin color?
That sounds really racist.

 No.5055

>>5054
>Why do you assume he's completely guiltless just because of his skin color?

I don't. I assume that based on the fact he was a 17 year old kid who was just trying to buy some candy, and was chased down by a man with a gun in the dark after the police told him not to follow. Then after an altercation (we only have the word of the killer was started by Martin) was shot dead. And his killer was found not guilty of murder because the person he killed was black.

There is enough ambiguity and problematic elements here to shoot down your "good guy with a gun" rhetoric. It is not reliable enough to hinge the lives of real people on. But if you're going to keep nitpicking and defending the shooter in this instance, there are tons of other examples of black people being wrongly shot by your so-called "good guys with guns" we can use.  

 No.5056

>>5055
Except that the information you say there goes contrary to what was presented in the court case.
trayvon confronted him after he had turned away under the dispatchers advisement. Trayvon was bashing his head into concrete when Zimmerman fired his shot.
it is not a case of not guilty purely because the person shot was black. That's in it exceptionally racist viewpoint I am absolutely unable to accept. That reach to me as just your own bigotry speaking. Nothing more.

>There is enough ambiguity and problematic elements here to shoot down your "good guy with a gun" rhetoric.
Youve yet to demonstrate that to be the case.
You've only cited your own exceptionally biased interpretation of one particular case, that I have no reason to agree with.

>But if you're going to keep nitpicking and defending the shooter in this instance, there are tons of other examples of black people being wrongly shot by your so-called "good guys with guns" we can use.
it is not nitpicking to point out that the evidence for self-defense is what made a case so, not the color of the skin of the victim.
It is frankly exceptionally dishonest you say otherwise.

By that argument, we might as well lock every single person up for murder regardless of circumstances, because those circumstances are ultimately just nitpicking.

 No.5057

File: 1590236603936.png (161.91 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, tttta.png) ImgOps Google

>>5049
OK, that makes some sense, at least that if weapons make individuals more independent, they might be less dependent on the state.

>>5052
I looked back at that.  I have to guess the discussion is bringing to mind cases where there's no objective 'good guy,' and so getting a bit off topic from a gunner massacring schoolchildren, who about everyone would say is the bad guy.  Although I'm pretty tired right now, so my capacity to process nuance might not be very good, so I may be missing things.

>>5050
So, basically a civil war might get muddy.  Civilian arms would make a civilian uprising more credible, shaking free and gathering sympathetics from the government.

War is a hard topic.  I've read books about war and I don't think I'd be very good at it.  I think if I say a great deal about war, I might get off topic.  We are talking about shared values, perhaps both sides could agree fighting is justified in some circumstances.

 No.5059

By and large I think the two sides want the exact same thing: to not get shot. It's complicated by the fact that they plain old don't like each other.

 No.5060

>>5056
>Trayvon was bashing his head into concrete when Zimmerman fired his shot.

This again, is only what Zimmerman said happened, with no one living being able to confirm this was the case. We know Zimmerman sustained injuries to the back of his head, but we have no way of knowing how het got them or who started the altercation because the only other person there that night is dead. This isn't hard to understand.

This argument is going in circles. I'm not sure you are capable of understanding how race plays into these kinds of issues.

>>5059
I don't want to get shot, but I don't want others to get shot either. Their stance is "I don't want to get shot, fuck everyone else. Shoot them first, if you have to!"

 No.5061

>>5060
Given one shot as I understand it was fired, it certainly seems likely that unless Trayvon was a necromatic construct, he couldn't've caused those injuries after he was shot.

>This argument is going in circles. I'm not sure you are capable of understanding how race plays into these kinds of issues.
Given your evidence of how "race plays into these kinds of cases" is assuming that because a black man was shot, he must have been innocent, I do not believe it is I who does not understand.

>I don't want to get shot, but I don't want others to get shot either.
Same for me.
I'd appreciate it if you'd stop labeling your oppositions with your evident complete lack of understanding about their reasoning or rationale.

Violence is the supreme authority from which all other authority is derived.
You cannot stop violence without violence.
That's the simple reality of the situation. I'd rather criminals and government not have a monopoly on that violence.

 No.5062

>>5060
Well, what do you think happened? Do you think Zimmerman murdered Trayvon in cold blood and then inflicted his own head injury to cover it up?  That's a real stretch IMHO.  

Do you think that Zimmerman, armed with a gun, punched Trayvon or otherwise initiated non-deadly violence against him?  Again, seems like a stretch.  

 No.5067

>>5061
>>5062

I beleive that Zimmerman confronted Martin. I believe that Zimmerman and Martin got in a physical confrontation, and I believe Zimmerman sustained the injuries to the back of his head as a result. But there is no way to know who initiated the confrontation and what happened between the initiation of confrontation, Zimmerman sustaining injuries to his head and Zimmerman shooting Martin. All of these thing are necessary to know who was at fault and if ruling it self defense is accurate. And we only have the testimony of Zimmerman to go on, someone who would have VERY GOOD REASON to try and skew the story to sound like self defense and not murder.

 No.5071

>>5067
I can at least say for certain that Zimmerman shot his pistol after the physical engagement started.
I don't see much reason to start a fist fight if you have a gun, I have to say, as well.

 No.5072

>>5071
By that logic, why was there a physical altercation at all? He was armed the entire time.

 No.5073

File: 1590450110776.png (166.17 KB, 700x500, 7:5, 1458651704942.png) ImgOps Google

>>5072
>By that logic, why was there a physical altercation at all? He was armed the entire time.
Exactly!  It makes no sense that Zimmerman would start the physical violence.  That leads me to believe that it must have been Trayvon who started the violence.

 No.5074

>>5072
Presumably because trayvon didn't realize he had a concealed carry weapon.
That is the point of having a concealed carry, after all, that other people don't know you have it

 No.5075

>>5073
>>5074

A strange, (armed) man came after him in the night when he was doing nothing wrong. If anything HE was acting in self-defense IF he initiated the conflict, which again, we have no way of knowing.

Both of you are assuming he was just some thug who wanted to pick a fight, not a scared kid being harassed by a stranger.

 No.5077

>>5075
Maybe he was afraid. But his reaction with his fear was to bash somebody's head into concrete, which consequently made them shoot him.

Fear can make stupid people do stupid things. Maybe that was the case with him. Suffice to say, however, there is certainly not enough evidence to suggest that this was somehow a case of someone committing murder and getting off because the victim was black, as you implied

 No.5078

File: 1590460301275.jpg (49.96 KB, 552x552, 1:1, dog-long-neck-159044668002….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>5075
>A strange, (armed) man came after him in the night when he was doing nothing wrong. If anything HE was acting in self-defense IF he initiated the conflict
Umm, no, that's not valid self-defense.  You can't preemptively launch a violent attack at someone and smash his head into concrete just because he is suspiciously following you.  Especially if your follower is acting perfectly within the bounds of the law.

 No.5079

>>5077
>>5078
If the situation had been reversed you'd still be defending Zimmerman.

We have gotten far away from the original topic. I just used Treyvon Martin as an example because I felt it was a clear-cut case of someone being murdered under suspicious circumstances and would clearly indicate that placing the choice of who lives and dies in the hands of whoever is holding a gun at the time is a dangerous mindset to have. Clearly some people are more interested in protecting the rights of guns than people. It honestly did not occur to me this would be the case, as that idea is completely foreign to me.

If you want to argue for Martin's murderer, then I suggest you make a new thread. I won't be discussing that topic further. Instead we should shift our focus back to the fact that people value guns and their right to own guns over other human lives, which is more in-line with the OP's original intention.

 No.5080

>>5079
Why do you say that? Do you assume it's because he's "white"?
>because I felt it was a clear-cut case of someone being murdered under suspicious circumstances
Okay. You're wrong.

>Clearly some people are more interested in protecting the rights of guns than people. It honestly did not occur to me this would be the case, as that idea is completely foreign to me.
Riiight, because the issue here is totally that we just love guns more than lives, and not at all that you got the facts of a particular case grossly wrong due to your own racial bias.

You brought up the Trayvon case to try to claim "self defense" doesn't work, and got blown out for it. Because that was a case, no matter how much you want to toot the 'racism' horn and pretend it wasn't. And now that you've been demonstrated to be holding a nonsensical position, rather than admit you're wrong or address the arguments made, you're going to fabricate what the beliefs others hold.

Alright; If you're going to make up shit for what I believe, I'll do the same:
You aren't interested in protecting lives.
You're only interested in getting rid of something you don't understand because you're afraid of it.

 No.5081

>>5080
You didn't prove me wrong, I just think the conversation is going in circles because you can't accept that we don't and can't know what happened that night beyond what the killer claimed. I've just never see anyone so quick to defend someone who shot a innocent teen in cold blood with no remorse that honestly I'm kind of disgusted with this conversation in general.

>>5080
>You're only interested in getting rid of something you don't understand because you're afraid of it.


I'm not afraid of guns. I'm afraid of those who use them and protect them. A gun, by itself, can't kill you. Barring some freak accident where you drop it down the stairs like this clip. A person with a several guns CAN kill you.

Mass shootings are a problem in this country and aren't in others. This suggest there is a solution to the problem. One of those solutions is stricter gun laws and regulations which the two of you have done nothing but resist. The question here is, why? If it's not because you don't value life why do I keep seeing things like "shootings are going to happen" being touted as reasons not to restrict guns? It's acting as if mass shooting are a foregone conclusion when they aren't.

 No.5082

>>5081
We can't know for absolute certain, sure. But the information we have makes it look pretty likely that he's innocent. And since we presume innocence to begin with, that's pretty excellent.
>I've just never see anyone so quick to defend someone who shot a innocent teen in cold blood with no remorse that honestly I'm kind of disgusted with this conversation in general.
And I've never seen anyone so quick to defend someone who brutally attacked another person smashing their head over and over with a desire to declare the guy who defended himself a cold blooded murderer.

 No.5083

File: 1590494041556.jpg (128.2 KB, 760x800, 19:20, japan-shooting-deaths-tent….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>5079
>I just used Treyvon Martin as an example because I felt it was a clear-cut case of someone being murdered under suspicious circumstances and would clearly indicate that placing the choice of who lives and dies in the hands of whoever is holding a gun at the time is a dangerous mindset to have.
It is not clear-cut.  If you want examples of unjustifiable homicide by people with guns, here are some much more clear-cut cases: Eric Garner and Philando Castile.

>Clearly some people are more interested in protecting the rights of guns than people.
Guns don't have rights.  People have rights.  Among those rights is the right the keep and bear arms.  And there are numerous incidents of people using that right to protect their lives.

>>5081
>I've just never see anyone so quick to defend someone who shot a innocent teen in cold blood
You're begging the question by claiming that Trayvon was innocent.  My belief is that Trayvon is guilty of brutally attacking Zimmerman, and Zimmerman justifiably employed deadly force to protect himself.

>>5081
> Barring some freak accident where you drop it down the stairs
Don't buy a Sig P320 :-)
Glock's trigger safety might seem kinda useless, but it's actually an important part of the gun's drop-safe capability.

>Mass shootings are a problem in this country and aren't in others. This suggest there is a solution to the problem.
Pic related :-)
More seriously, causation is very hard to establish.  Personally, I don't think any of the well-known gun-control proposals would do much to address the problem of mass shootings.

 No.5084

>>5083
>More seriously, causation is very hard to establish.

Not really. Ease of access to guns means people... have easy access to guns. Doesn't seem too hard to pin-point the problem.

 No.5085

>>5084
Sure, but then the problem becomes "How do we get rid of the guns that already exist" and "How do we get rid of all the guns since they can just use a different one".

 No.5086

>>5085
Getting rid of all guns in the US is unfeasible. But what we can so is place more restrictions on the purchase of guns to make sure only responsible people can get them. The majority of mass shootings were committed with legally acquired guns.

 No.5087

>>5086
And how do you know they won't just use illegal methods if those are easier?

 No.5088

>>5087
We don't. But that's a far off hypothetical. It's just as likely many shooters will fail to get guns for their shootings, or simply give up.

You can argue that a determined person will find a way to get the guns, sure. But that's an unknown speculation. But even if that were the case, stricter gun laws will still hamper their ability to get guns even if they still find a way to do so. The shooter in the 2017 Las Vegas shooting had 47 guns he had legally acquired. Even if stricter gun laws only halfed that number because he had to go through tougher, illegal channels to get his guns, it's still likely far fewer people would have gotten shot. Also, illegal channels for getting guns are more closely scrutinized. It would have raised suspicions for any one person to have purchased that many illegal guns in such a short time-frame.

That's why I find this "they will just find ways to get the guns illegally" argument factitious. Or at least misguided. It completely ignores the real issue by pretending it's an all or nothing game. It's not. Anything we can do to hamper a would-be shooter from acquiring guns we should be doing, even if it is not possible to completely stop the sale of illegal guns. Ever hurdle put in their way could be one life saved.

 No.5089

>>5084
Many seemingly obvious hypotheses have failed when actually tested.  You can't just propose a plausible mechanism of action and expect people to believe your claim.  The gold standard (a doubly blinded randomized controlled trial (RCT)) is basically impossible to achieve with gun-control laws, but the closer you get to that, the more believable your claim.

I suspect that restricting legal gun purchases will have only a marginal effect on criminal uses of guns, because criminals will switch to illegally acquiring their guns.  Here is a data point in favor of my hypothesis:

"In the 13 states with the fewest restrictions on gun ownership, 40 percent of inmates illegally obtained the gun they used, Webster said. ...
In the other 37 states, including New York state, 60 percent of inmates illegally procured the gun they used, Webster said."
( https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2018/mar/12/john-faso/do-illegal-gun-owners-commit-most-gun-crime-rep-fa/ )

 No.5090

>>5089
Already talked about the "they'll get guns illegally" argument right above this. >>5088

 No.5091

>>5088
I think deciding to kill a large number of people, especially when you must fully realize it's likely to be the end of your life, is going to take more commitment than that. It's not something I think someone would just "give up" if they're stopped by something as simple as a background check.

You can call it "speculatory", but, it seems to me the difference of punishing innocent people to do nothing, and just working to prevent the action.

As to crackdowns on illegal guns, given the events of the fast and furious scandal, I'm rather skeptical of their practicality or even benefit.

 No.5092

>>5090
Yes, and it seems like the data point i cited in >>5089 rebuts some of the claims you made in >>5088.  E.g., criminals switching to illegally acquiring guns is no longer just "a far off hypothetical", it's supported by my data point.

 No.5093

>>5092
That's ignoring the real point of my post, though. Namely that it's not an all or nothing situation. Just because it's impossible to completely stop the illegal acquiring of guns does not mean that stricter gun laws will not hamper the acquisition guns by would-be shooters. And that any measurable decrease in the availability of guns to would-be shooters would lessen their ability to take life. Especially considering there is literally no downside to doing so. Law-abiding citizens will still be able to get guns by going through the legal channels.  

 No.5094

>>5092
Also, we are specifically talking about mass shootings here, and your link includes all "gun crime" in its entirety. The majority of mass shootings are committed with legally acquired firearms.

 No.5095

>>5094
Currently, largely because the individuals who go on shootings tend to be otherwise law abiding citizens. It's easiest for them to go the legal route, evidently.
I see no reason to believe someone committed to killing dozens of people at the direct cost of their life, regardless of if they live or not given likely sentencing, would not be committed enough to simply procure an illegal firearm through those channels.

 No.5096

>>5095
>>5091
Again, you missed my point. I'll reiterate: Even IF stricter gun laws only force would-be shooters down the route of illegally acquiring firearms, that will still hamper their ability to get them. It's a hurdle in their way. The shooter in the 2017 Las Vegas shooting had 47 guns he had legally acquired. Even if stricter gun laws only halved that number because he had to go through tougher, illegal channels to get his guns, it's still likely far fewer people would have gotten shot.

That's why I find this "they will just find ways to get the guns illegally" argument factitious. Or at least misguided. It completely ignores the real issue by pretending it's an all or nothing game. It's not. Anything we can do to hamper a would-be shooter from acquiring guns we should be doing, even if it is not possible to completely stop the sale of illegal guns. Every hurdle put in their way could be one life saved.

Also, please explain what the "fast and furious scandal" is.

 No.5097

>>5096
Most mass shootings do not require 47 guns. Near as I can tell, the Las Vegas guy, ignoring the rather suspect events, was a collector. That's why he had so many.
He is, certainly, far from typical regardless.

>. Anything we can do to hamper a would-be shooter from acquiring guns we should be doing,
Nonsense.
Do you think every single person should have a GPS tracked collar on, and only be allowed to leave their home for government sanctioned trips, with the route tracked along the way to ensure there's no deviation?
That would certainly slow mass shootings, but obviously it shouldn't be done.

>Ever hurdle put in their way could be one life saved.
The 'one life saved' is the most useless argument.
There are so many things you can do to 'save one life'. We could ban all non-lifeguard pools, for instance, including home pools. Those kill a lot of people, after all. We could restrict vehicles to only going 35 miles per hour, for instance. Accidents at high speeds kill loads of people. Be could ban alcohol. Drinking is exceptionally harmful.

>Also, please explain what the "fast and furious scandal" is.
Long story short, the renowned-for-incompetence organization of the ATF decided they wanted to try to track firearms to cartels, and so sold a ton of guns expecting to be able to link them to the cartel bigwigs... Aaand immediately lost track of them, basically just handing over a ton of weapons to known criminals for absolutely no benefit.

 No.5098

>>5097
>Near as I can tell, the Las Vegas guy, ignoring the rather suspect events, was a collector. That's why he had so many.

Actually, the vast majority of the guns used were purchased in the span of about a week between September 25 and October 1st, the day of the shooting.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Las_Vegas_shooting#Preparation)

>He is, certainly, far from typical regardless

What evidence do you have to support that? His story seems typical of many mass shooters.

>Do you think every single person should have a GPS tracked collar on...
>We could ban alcohol...

Ahh, you're focusing on the word "anything" to argumentum ad absurdum.  Clearly I didn't mean literally "anything". Killing every person on Earth with poison would end mass shootings completely, but it's an absurd extreme. I apologize for not making my statement more logical fallacy proof. I will rephrase.

> Anyting we can do to hamper a would-be shooter from acquiring guns within reason that does not harm anyone or seriously infringe on people we should be doing. Even if it is not possible to completely stop the sale of illegal guns. Every hurdle put in their way could be one life saved.

 No.5099

>>5098
>What evidence do you have to support that? His story seems typical of many mass shooters.
Then please cite the number of mass shooters who had in their possession at the time of their shooting 47 firearms.

> Clearly I didn't mean literally "anything"
Then next time don't say it.
Words have meanings. If you're not meaning what the word means, don't use it.
Call it a 'falacy' as much as you like; It's a fair counter to what you actually said.

> Anyting we can do to hamper a would-be shooter from acquiring guns within reason that does not harm anyone or seriously infringe on people we should be doing.
Okay, cool, I can agree with that.
I think making firearms illegal, imposing draconian restrictions on purchasing, and limiting the number people can have would directly infringe on people's rights.
With marginal gain to boot.

 No.5100

File: 1590522039028.png (1.17 MB, 1512x2512, 189:314, applejack-military-2.png) ImgOps Google

>>5093
>Especially considering there is literally no downside to doing so.
If you see no downsides, you're not thinking hard enough.  No system is implemented perfectly.  Let me ask you: What are some downsides that might arise from flaws in the implementation of the system that you're proposing?

 No.5103

>>5099
>Then next time don't say it.
>Words have meanings. If you're not meaning what the word means, don't use it. Call it a 'falacy' as much as you like; It's a fair counter to what you actually said.

Most people understand certain words have general uses that differ slightly from their exact dictionary meaning. To assume you do not would be an insult to your intelligence, so I am instead assuming you are being intentionally pedantic.

>I think making firearms illegal,

No one is proposing making all firearms illegal.

>imposing draconian restrictions on purchasing

Nothing proposed so far could be considered "draconian".

>limiting the number people can have

This one is the only one that's even close to being proposed here. So explain to me how limiting the number of guns a person can purchase at one time is "infringing" on them. Answer me this: Do you consider needing a drivers licence to legally operate a car an "infringement"?

>With marginal gain to boot.
Only if you consider saving lives "minimal gain", which is exacty what this thread is about.

 No.5104

>>5100
There are no downsides. People will still be able to acquire guns legally if they can prove they are responsible enough to do so. So if you are responsible, there is no reason to resist these restrictions.

 No.5105

>>5103
My understanding, and I think an understanding that will echo for the common populace, is that "anything" means anything, not just 'anything that I agree with'.
The whole point of dictionaries is to reflect common understanding, anyway.

>No one is proposing making all firearms illegal.
Didn't say all.

>Nothing proposed so far could be considered "draconian".
Let's hear your specific proposal, then. Most the ones I've run across are nonsensical at best and consequently do nothing, draconian at worst.

>So explain to me how limiting the number of guns a person can purchase at one time is "infringing" on them.
If I want more than one, as a law abiding citizen, I should be allowed to purchase more than one. I am not harming anyone. The transaction is agreed upon between myself and the seller as two consenting parties.
>Do you consider needing a drivers licence to legally operate a car an "infringement"?
Your ignorance in regards to the law once again presents itself.

You do not require a drivers license to legally operate a car.

>Only if you consider saving lives "minimal gain", which is exacty what this thread is about.
See
>>5097
"The 'one life saved' is the most useless argument.
There are so many things you can do to 'save one life'. We could ban all non-lifeguard pools, for instance, including home pools. Those kill a lot of people, after all. We could restrict vehicles to only going 35 miles per hour, for instance. Accidents at high speeds kill loads of people. Be could ban alcohol. Drinking is exceptionally harmful"

Putting GPS trackers on everyone and only allowing them to go to the places of necessity would "save lives".

 No.5106

>>5104
Who determines if you are "responsible"?

I'm curious, do you think in the early era of civil rights, when firearms were more than necessary to protect minority voices and their rights, do you think the state would've said that black individuals desiring those firearms to protect themselves were "responsible"? Or would the institutional racism of that era likely result in them being denied purely because of their race?

 No.5107

>>5105
>The whole point of dictionaries is to reflect common understanding, anyway.

Why do you think dictionaries have to be updated? Because the meanings and usage of words drift overtime and do not always directly reflect their exact textbook definitions. Again, Most people understand this and it would be an insult to your intelligence for me to assume you do not. So I choose to assuming you are being intentionally pedantic. Please stop.

>Didn't say all.

You also didn't specific an amount. And saying "making firearms illegal" as you did could include any and all firearms unless you specify.

See, I can be needlessly pedantic about semantics too. See how unhelpful it is? Please stop.

>. Most the ones I've run across are nonsensical at best and consequently do nothing, draconian at worst.

See, but that's you ascribing the extremes you're heard to me unfairly without actually listening to what I'm proposing.

>You do not require a drivers license to legally operate a car.

You need one to operate one on most public roads and highways in the US as far as I am aware. But you are ignoring the point, again. Please stop.

Is it "infringement" to require drivers licences to perform some actions with a motor vehicle?

> See 5097

I already showed that you are using argumentum ad absurdum to try and dodge the real question. You can't argue against a reasonable proposal by saying unreasonable ones exist.

>>5106
Actually, that's already happened. The Mulford act was directly caused by the Black Panthers arming themselves for protection (https://www.history.com/news/black-panthers-gun-control-nra-support-mulford-act)

But if black people's rights to bear arms are already being infringed on, the issue of minority's people access to guns is less of an issue worth discussing.

 No.5108

>>5107
If you've got a dictionary where the word "anything" doesn't actually mean "anything" but rather "stuff I agree with", I'd love to see it.

> And saying "making firearms illegal" as you did could include any and all firearms unless you specify.
No, I include any firearms that are desired to be banned.
Both the AR-15 and the Mauser are firearms.
I imagine you wouldn't want to ban the Mauser, though funnily enough it is a 'weapon of war'. Meanwhile, I suspect the AR-15 is one of those 'scary black assault rifles'.

>See, but that's you ascribing the extremes you're heard to me unfairly without actually listening to what I'm proposing.
Then let's hear it.

>You need one to operate one on most public roads and highways in the US as far as I am aware.
Yes. That is correct.
But, you do not have to in order to own it. Nor do you have to in order to operate it on private property.
>Is it "infringement" to require drivers licences to perform some actions with a motor vehicle?
It would be infringement if you could not purchase or drive it on private property as seems to be proposed in regards to firearms.

>You can't argue against a reasonable proposal by saying unreasonable ones exist.
And you cannot use an argument and then say it doesn't apply just because it's inconvenient to you.

You cannot say "IF IT SAVES ONE LIFE" and then say "well, banning alchohol is too extreme, we wouldn't want to do that even though it does save lives".

 No.5109

>>5107
>Actually, that's already happened.
That was part of the point.
Why on earth would you give power to governments which you perfectly well know have absolutely no issue acting in exceptionally hostile ways violating people's rights based solely on arbitrary characteristics?

 No.5110

>>5108
>If you've got a dictionary

Please stop being intentionally pedantic.

>And you cannot use an argument and then say it doesn't apply just because it's inconvenient to you.

I didn't. I said "doing this thing would help the problem" and you said "SO WOULD BLOWING UP THE EARTH, SHOULD BE BLOW UP THE EARTH!?" It's completely useless to the conversation to argue the most absurd extreme case unless your only goal is to shut down the conversation entirely.

>Then let's hear it.

There's lots of things you could do to help the problem of mass shootings. Requiring a gun licences like a driving or hunting licences. Limiting the number of guns a person can purchase in a certain time-frame. Limiting the sale of certain types of weapons to people unless they can prove they have legitimate use for it. Closing the "gun show loophole" that doesn't require a background check if you buy from an individual.

All of these things could be discussed and fine-tuned to find the best solution. But just as you've heard extreme arguments from people in favor of not getting shot, I've not heard any proposal of ways to curb mass shootings from gun advocates. Only the (heh) shooting down of all proposals as unfeasible without offering any alternatives.

>>5109
Ideally, the characteristics won't be "arbitrary". They will show that a person is responsible and stable enough to own a firearm (or certain types of firearms) the same way a drivers licences shows someone is responsible enough to drive a car.

If someone is a law-abiding, mentally healthy citizen, there is literally no reason to resist it and all the reason to support it.

 No.5111

>>5093
What exactly are you proposing?  Are you proposing that all private sales must go thru an FFL (i.e., what some people refer to as "closing gunshow loophole")?  Or is there something more?

>>5096
>The shooter in the 2017 Las Vegas shooting had 47 guns he had legally acquired. Even if stricter gun laws only halved that number because he had to go through tougher, illegal channels to get his guns, it's still likely far fewer people would have gotten shot.
I am seriously puzzled by this line of reasoning.  First, he only used 14 of the guns in committing the murders.  And secondly, he could have committed the crime with only two or three guns.  Hell, with luck, he could have done it with just a single gun.  A machine gun can often get off 3000 rounds before the barrel fails from overheating.

>>5104
Have you ever met an IT system that you were certain would work 100% perfectly and never suffer a data breach?

>>5110
>It's completely useless to the conversation to argue the most absurd extreme case unless your only goal is to shut down the conversation entirely.
Or maybe his goal was to try to get you to be more precise?  Precision is often needed to have a reasonable discussion.

>>5110
>Limiting the number of guns a person can purchase in a certain time-frame.
That would require the government to maintain a central database of gun sales, which is currently illegal, and it's illegal for a good reason.

>>5110
>If someone is a law-abiding, mentally healthy citizen, there is literally no reason to resist it and all the reason to support it.
I have a counterexample: California's system.  It was designed to be annoying to lawful purchasers.  Read Roger Benitez's ruling for a detailed description: https://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/2020-04-23-Order-Granting-MPI.pdf

 No.5112

>>5111
If one gun could do the job effectively, why do most mass shootings bring several?

>Have you ever met an IT system that you were certain would work 100% perfectly and never suffer a data breach?

No, that's impossible. But you can certainly get closer than "not trying at all."

>That would require the government to maintain a central database of gun sales... And it's illegal for a good reason.

Please share it.

> It was designed to be annoying to lawful purchasers.

That sounds more like some person's personal opinion than fact.

 No.5113

>>5110
It's not intentional. I just find your insistence that assuming the word "anything" actually means "anything " is dishonest, dishonest.

> and you said "SO WOULD BLOWING UP THE EARTH, SHOULD BE BLOW UP THE EARTH!?"
Do you consider the banning of alchohol or the restriction of vehicles to 35 mphs the equivalent of "blowing up the earth"?

Why is the restriction on firearms, something that kills far fewer than drunk driving, more acceptable to you than similar restrictions on alchohol?
Why is the argument of "saving lives" unacceptable for that aspect, but not as it relates to firearms, to the point where you insist everyone who disagrees with you on firearms considers "saving lives" to be "minimal gain"?
Couldn't the same be said for you?

> Requiring a gun licences like a driving or hunting licences.
So, you don't need it to purchase, and only need it to operate on public infrastructure.
I'm fine with that.
I get to own whatever I want on my own land. That's reasonable. CCWs are practically that anyway, so the only extra restriction is in regards to open carry. Which isn't universal anyway.
> Limiting the number of guns a person can purchase in a certain time-frame.
Why?
What would that prevent?
>Limiting the sale of certain types of weapons to people unless they can prove they have legitimate use for it.
What kind of weapons?
What constitutes a 'legitimate use'?
> Closing the "gun show loophole" that doesn't require a background check if you buy from an individual.
If you make it free and easily accessible, I'm okay with that. Background checks that require you to go through an FFL and deal with the wait that comes with it, though, aren't reasonable.
Especially when it isn't a loophole but a specific exemption anyway.

So long as these are given with actual compromise, as in not just "take only a quarter of my cake instead of half", but rather "Reopen the machine gun registry, close the nonsense rules of the NFA", I could probably agree with much of it.

> I've not heard any proposal of ways to curb mass shootings from gun advocates.
Let teachers conceal carry.
Improve what's done during mass shootings. Duck and cover doesn't work. Evacuation would.
>Only the (heh) shooting down of all proposals as unfeasible without offering any alternatives.
You did the same with our proposals.

>>5110
>Ideally, the characteristics won't be "arbitrary"
It's the government.
Idealism is rarely applicable.
>They will show that a person is responsible and stable enough to own a firearm (or certain types of firearms) the same way a drivers licences shows someone is responsible enough to drive a car.
First off, again, drivers licenses are not required to drive a car.
Secondly, have you seen the roads?
I'm not really convinced drivers licenses do much of anything anyway. Especially since people without them tend to drive anyway, simply out of necessity, given the state of public transport in anywhere not a big city.
My personal opinion, honestly, is that it's an easy way to get people to have and keep on them IDs which help significantly with liability in the event of crashes, as well as other incidents. But, I suppose that's another subject.

Suffice to say, I don't trust the government to determine who is "responsible" enough for a car, let alone a gun.
>If someone is a law-abiding, mentally healthy citizen, there is literally no reason to resist it and all the reason to support it.
How about "given the corruption of the government in the past, it is not unreasonable to believe it could have the same issue in the future"?

 No.5114

>>5112
>If one gun could do the job effectively, why do most mass shootings bring several?
Could you prove that?
Most I see is one backup. Certainly not 47, as was earlier suggested.

 No.5115

>>5112
>If one gun could do the job effectively, why do most mass shootings bring several?
In case one gun suffers a malfunction like a squib load that takes it out of service.

>No, that's impossible.
So then, do you admit that there is a decent probability of having downsides?

>That sounds more like some person's personal opinion than fact.
Here is a fact: "in the seven months since implementation, the standard
background check rejected citizen-residents who are not prohibited persons
approximately 16.4% of the time."

 No.5116

>>5115
>So then, do you admit that there is a decent probability of having downsides?

I mean, ok there could be some. But not enough to outweigh the benefits of saving lives.

>approximately 16.4% of the time.

That's not a lot. And what was the reason given for those rejections?

 No.5117

File: 1590525907302.jpg (67.76 KB, 807x540, 269:180, aluYybD3OHo.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>5112
>>That would require the government to maintain a central database of gun sales... And it's illegal for a good reason.
>Please share it.
1. It prevents a future tyrant from using the database to aid in confiscation.
2. Privacy is generally a good thing.
3. China can't steal the database if it doesn't exist.

 No.5118

>>5116
>I mean, ok there could be some. But not enough to outweigh the benefits of saving lives.
How much outweighs that benefit?
Because you seem to think banning alchohol would outweigh that benefit, as would restricting cars to 35 mphs, and banning non-lifeguard pools.

Where exactly is the line for "it saves lives" and "it's got downsides"?

 No.5119

>>5116
>That's not a lot.
What?  A 16.4 false-positive rate is HUGE for a straightforward criminal background check.  For comparison, the federal NICS had a 1.1% total positive rate (false positive + true positive).

>And what was the reason given for those rejections?
See pages 34--36 of the ruling.

 No.5120

>Do you consider the banning of alchohol or the restriction of vehicles to 35 mphs the equivalent of "blowing up the earth"?

Yes. Those are both hyperbolic, unrealistic extremes.

>Why? What would that prevent?

The... purchasing of mass amounts of guns at one time? Isn't that obvious?

>What kind of weapons?
That would have to be determined. But I'd say things like AR-15s have little reasons to be in the hands of civilians.

>What constitutes a 'legitimate use'?

If it is required for your occupation or profession.

>Let teachers conceal carry.
We already went over why I disagree with that in another thread. It's not really a legitimate argument to say that "More guns will cause less shootings."

>Improve what's done during mass shootings. Duck and cover doesn't work. Evacuation would.

That's... not preventing mass shootings. That's putting the burden of surviving on the victims instead of stopping them from happening in the first place.

>I'm not really convinced drivers licenses do much of anything anyway.

That's your personal opinion. Unless you back it up with statistics, it's irrelevant. Having a system that punishes those who get caught without a licences still keeps a number of them off the road and keeps the rest aware of the consequences and more likely to drive safer.

 No.5121

>>5119
>See pages 34--36 of the ruling.
Wait, no, that's not the right section...

 No.5122

>>5117
>. It prevents a future tyrant from using the database to aid in confiscation.

Confiscation is a myth dreamed up by paranoid gun nuts to justify not wanting to budge on the issue. It has never been proposed as a real idea and would be exceedingly difficult to even consider. It would mean sending American citizens into the houses of their families and neighbors to reclaim those weapons with no resistance. It's a fantasy.

>Privacy is generally a good thing.

if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.

>China can't steal the database if it doesn't exist.

I'm not even sure what this one is about. What would China even want with that? What would they gain?

>>5118
>Because you seem to think banning alchohol would outweigh that benefit,

Your'e the only one talking about banning alcohol. I told you it was a ridiculous hyperbolic extreme your'e trying to use to delegitimatize an actual solution.

 No.5123

File: 1590526782069.jpg (121.77 KB, 1200x414, 200:69, 1200px-Mini14GB.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>5120
>Yes. Those are both hyperbolic, unrealistic extremes.
Why?
It seems to me restricting cars to 35 mphs is miles more feasable than blowing up the earth. And an attempt to ban alcohol has been done before.

>The... purchasing of mass amounts of guns at one time? Isn't that obvious?
To what end? How would that help?

>That would have to be determined. But I'd say things like AR-15s have little reasons to be in the hands of civilians.
Why?
Would something like the Mini14 be unacceptable? See pic

>If it is required for your occupation or profession.
What kind of weapons are you restricting that'd mean only available to specific occupations?
Why are those firearms so dangerous as to not be allowed in the hands of normal citizens, and yet still be safe enough to be in the hands of people who merely got hired for something?

>We already went over why I disagree with that in another thread. It's not really a legitimate argument to say that "More guns will cause less shootings."
Pretty sure it was this thread. Nonetheless, this is a consideration I would insist actually would work.
But, since you admit yourself that you have heard a proposal to curb mass shootings from a gun advocate, the statement made prior in >>5110
>" I've not heard any proposal of ways to curb mass shootings from gun advocates. Only the (heh) shooting down of all proposals as unfeasible without offering any alternatives. "
is objectively false.
In addition; What you just did was "shoot down" a proposal as 'unfeasible'.

>That's putting the burden of surviving on the victims instead of stopping them from happening in the first place.
Fire escapes don't stop fires, but they sure as hell save lives.

>That's your personal opinion
Maybe. You did miss the rest, however. Most notably that a drivers license is not required to own or operate a vehicle.

 No.5124

>>5122
>Your'e the only one talking about banning alcohol. I told you it was a ridiculous hyperbolic extreme your'e trying to use to delegitimatize an actual solution.
Why.

Should be a super easy question to answer, yet you seem to be just inclined to declare it such.

Can I say that your proposed restrictions on gun control are "ridiculous hyperbolic extreme", and dismiss them without argument?

 No.5125

>>5121
>>5116
>And what was the reason given for those rejections?
See pages 7--29 of the ruling.  Yes, it's long, but California's system is such a colossal fuckup that it takes that long to adequately describe it.

 No.5126

>>5124
So are you actually arguing for the banning of alcohol? If you are, then you should make a new thread for that.

If not, then it's clear you are using it as a hyperbolic example to delegitimize any an all gun-related legislation. Which is dishonest. So please, either make a new thread about banning alcohol or stop trying to use a hyperbolic example to discredit an actual proposal.

 No.5127

>>5126
I'm arguing that banning alcohol would make as much sense given your stated-so-far principles.

Personally, I do not believe lives are worth restricting liberty. But, since you appear to, why is it that your principles say it is acceptable to restrict firearms, something that kills far fewer than alcohol does?
Why is a proposal to restrict alcohol worse than a proposal to restrict firearms?

>If not, then it's clear you are using it as a hyperbolic example to delegitimize any an all gun-related legislation.
Not quite.
I'm using it as a question of your proposed principles, to delegitimize you as a hypocrite.

 No.5128

>>5123

>To what end? How would that help?
Prevent or significantly slow would-be mass shooters from assming a large amount of guns. Again, this is obvious.

>Why are those firearms so dangerous as to not be allowed in the hands of normal citizens, and yet still be safe enough to be in the hands of people who merely got hired for something?

You would still have to meet other criteria for purchasing as well. Such as mental wellness checks and displaying knowledge of the weapon. Having the job would only be the first step.

>Fire escapes don't stop fires, but they sure as hell save lives.

But we also take measure to stop fires from starting. We don't depend entirely on fire escapes. Those are a last resort.

 No.5129

File: 1590527333542.jpg (40.73 KB, 640x480, 4:3, 9zav3wky3bwg.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>5122
>Confiscation is a myth dreamed up by paranoid gun nuts
You haven't heard about New Zealand?

>if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.
Are you seriously, unironically asserting that?  Do you really have no idea why websites are encrypting their traffic?

>>China
>I'm not even sure what this one is about. What would China even want with that? What would they gain?
Well, China already hacked a government background check database!  And you can find this out easily by googling it!

 No.5130

>>5128
>Prevent or significantly slow would-be mass shooters from assming a large amount of guns. Again, this is obvious.
And is that necessary?
You've not provided data to suggest it's common for more than two or three firearms to be brought to the scene of a shooting.
Certainly not the 47 earlier mentioned.
Are you going to prohibit people from buying two guns at a time?

>You would still have to meet other criteria for purchasing as well. Such as mental wellness checks and displaying knowledge of the weapon. Having the job would only be the first step.
And I presume those steps would be required to get any gun under this proposal.
So, once again;
"Why are those firearms so dangerous as to not be allowed in the hands of normal citizens, and yet still be safe enough to be in the hands of people who merely got hired for something?"

>But we also take measure to stop fires from starting. We don't depend entirely on fire escapes. Those are a last resort.
Yes, but saying we shouldn't bother with those resorts because the problem is the fires would needlessly get people killed for no gain whatsoever.
Besides; The bulk of our fire response doesn't stop fires from starting. Not an extinguisher nor firemen nor sprinkler systems stop it from starting.
Seems to me the bulk of our fire response is to mitigate the damage.

 No.5131

>>5129
No, but I was speaking of America specifically. Other places are going to have different cultures and governments that I'm not familair with. I think NZ also has a fraction of the population and size the US does. But if you wish, elaborate on what you mean by bringing up New Zealand.

>Do you really have no idea why websites are encrypting their traffic?

Because people are looking at Digimon porn. That's something to hide. I wouldn't want anyone to know how hot I think Gatomon is.

>China did a thing
To what end, though. And why would they be interested in this information specifically?

 No.5132

>>5131
New Zealand did gun confiscation using the existing records. as I understand.

>Because people are looking at Digimon porn. That's something to hide. I wouldn't want anyone to know how hot I think Gatomon is.
So logically people do have something to fear, given everyone has something to hide regardless of who they are.

Privacy is important because of this. I'd rather not be blackmailed for my particular porn tastes. Nor would I like to be targetted by criminals for my taste in pricy firearms.
There's also something to be said for the way information is often used to target your political enemies. Even when nothing is actually done wrong, being able to skew it as though something was can ruin people's lives. And law enforcement has a million and a half of different ways to fuck you over for things that should be perfectly legitimate.

Thinking privacy isn't important seems hopelessly naive to me.

 No.5133

>>5130
>Are you going to prohibit people from buying two guns at a time?

Two would probably be near the upper limit of guns a person needs at one time, yes. Honestly, I don't know why anyone would need more than ONE gun. That's sufficient for self-defense. But I can see a situation where someone might need more than one gun for things like hunting or if more than one person in their family required them. It would have to be looked at in a case-by-case basis to find what's best.

And I'd be fine with discussing what the upper limits should be with gun advocates, if they could provide legitimate reasons for wanting that many beyond vague fantasy scenarios.

>And I presume those steps would be required to get any gun under this proposal.

No, only certain guns. Hand guns would still be freely purchasable, within the number you are limited to. As would most types of hunting rifles and shotguns.

>es, but saying we shouldn't bother with those resorts because the problem is the fires would needlessly get people killed for no gain whatsoever.

I'm fine with the fire exits, so long as they come with fire-preventing measures. You only proposed two things. The fire exits and to give teachers flamethrowers.

 No.5134

>>5131
>Because people are looking at Digimon porn. That's something to hide. I wouldn't want anyone to know how hot I think Gatomon is.
There is a legit reason that gun owners often want to hide their firearm purchases.  Can you figure it out?  Here's one answer: guns are expensive and often targeted by thieves.

>>5133
How many video games does a person need at one time?

 No.5135

>>5134
>>5134
>There is a legit reason that gun owners often want to hide their firearm purchases.  Can you figure it out?  Here's one answer: guns are expensive and often targeted by thieves.

This information would not be public.

>How many video games does a person need at one time?

Video games don't kill people. In fact, it would be exceedingly difficult to kill even one person with 200 video games.

 No.5136

>>5135
>Video games don't kill people.
There are people who argue that video games encourage violence and school shootings.

 No.5137

File: 1590528543725.jpg (19.4 KB, 300x300, 1:1, 1471070228519.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>5135
>This information would not be public.
It would after some teenager hacks into the government IT system and leaks the database.

 No.5138

>>5133
>Two would probably be near the upper limit of guns a person needs at one time, yes.
Why bother, then? Because I'm fairly sure shooters'd have no issue using just two.
You never did post any statistics to suggest otherwise, after all.
>Honestly, I don't know why anyone would need more than ONE gun. That's sufficient for self-defense.
Because different guns do different things?
I can't exactly go to a precision marksman competition with a 12 gauge singleshot break-action shotgun.
> or if more than one person in their family required them.
Wouldn't this defeat the purpose of a lot of those laws anyway? Or are they going to have to go through the process of checking if they're "responsible" as well?

>No, only certain guns. Hand guns would still be freely purchasable, within the number you are limited to.
Why?
I already provided you statistics on the usage of handguns in mass shooting events, so I know you're aware that they are more common than rifles.
Here it is again, if for whatever reason you forgot.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/
The third most deadly shooting in the United States was with a pistol.
And this isn't even getting in to general crime use. In general crimes, the pistols are the most commonly used firearm.

Why is a pistol, the gun most likely to be found at any given crime scene, the one with the least amount of restrictions or regulations?

> The fire exits and to give teachers flamethrowers.
What do you think the police use when mass shooting events happen?
Do you think they give shooters hugs?

 No.5139

>>5135
>This information would not be public.
That makes it worse.
If it's government-controlled, it needs to be public for the sake of transparency.
It's when we allow the government to act in the shadows that they do the most horrific of deeds.

 No.5140

File: 1590529267849.jpg (16.64 KB, 400x271, 400:271, 1471070186879.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>5133
> Honestly, I don't know why anyone would need more than ONE gun.
Well, you might want a compact pistol for concealed carry.  And a full-size pistol for OC on your own property and where you don't care if you people see you carrying.  And a PCC for home defense.  And a .22LR rifle for plinking.  And a .30-06 for deer hunting.  And a shotgun for skeet / clay pigeons.  And an AR-15 or AK-47 to prep for SHTF scenarios.  Plus whatever guns you inherited from your grandfather.  And if you're interested in history, you might need to buy a lot of guns to complete your collection.

 No.5141

>>5140
>don't carry if
*don't care if

 No.5142

>>5140
In my case, I have six, seven if you include black powder. Each has a different practical use.
The closest together'd probably be the single-shot shotgun, and semi-auto shotgun I have.

I intend to get another soon, because I want to get a proper concealed carry pistol rather than the old surplus gun that was the best bang for my buck at the time. Plus probably a nice sized revolver at a later date, since I want a decent gun for a bear gun. Might swap that to a glock in 10mm, though. Haven't decided.

 No.5143

File: 1590531453270.jpg (69.25 KB, 800x600, 4:3, 1085620615258.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>5142
>the single-shot shotgun, and semi-auto shotgun I have.
Have you noticed much different in felt recoil?  I've heard that some semi-autos have noticeably less recoil.

 No.5144

>>5143
Somewhat. I had a recoil pad on the single shot one so it doesn't really kick much. Especially since I always used birdshot.
My brother's pump definitely kicks more, though, so I'm pretty sure it's the pad.

Mostly got that because I needef a slightly longer pull. Being call makes firearm comfort a tad hard. Probably not help by my first gun being a fullsized Mauser. Granted, sporterized, but still.

 No.5145

File: 1590533193219.jpg (74.39 KB, 597x581, 597:581, 1472315320275.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>5144
On the subject of firearm ergonomics for differently-sized people: It always gets me that the antis consider a telescoping stock for length-of-pull adjustments to be an """assault weapon""" feature.  As if the firearm is somehow more dangerous because it can adjust to accommodate both a petite woman and a big, tall man.

 No.5146

>>5136
There are also people who argue against that and attempt to debunk it. it's a contested stance. But "Guns are used in shootings" isn't.

>>5137
That's a far off hypothetical we have no way of knowing how likely it is.

>>5139
The governments been doing quite a few horrific things in plain sight lately, why fear the dark when the light isn't much better?

 No.5147

>>5138
Atleast one shooter used several and no one needs a massive amount of guns so I see no reason not to limit the amount.

>What do you think the police use when mass shooting events happen? Do you think they give shooters hugs?

Even the police have been known to use their guns irresponsibly and they go through a lot of training before they are given their guns. Teachers are not trained in how to use firearms. Are you suggesting we train all teachers the same way we train police officers on gun safety? Because that's a better proposal than just arming them, but still comes with it's own set of problems.

 No.5148

File: 1590535289070.jpg (58.74 KB, 640x640, 1:1, 1498451223588.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>5147
>Atleast one shooter used several
for shits and giggles.  He didn't need several.  He would have done the same thing with just one or two.

>I see no reason not to limit the amount.
Read >>5140 and >>5142.   Any sensible limit would be higher than the number of guns used in a vast majority of mass shootings.  Whatever you said about ignoring the fraction of mass shooting done with illegally acquired guns applies with even more weight to mass shooting done with more than 7 guns.

 No.5149

>>5148
So 7 sounds like a good limit, then. I'd probably say lower, but we can work with 7 if that's what you are proposing.

 No.5150

File: 1590535967282.jpg (165.5 KB, 580x418, 290:209, cat-and-bunnies.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>5149
>if that's what you are proposing.
Please read my post again.  In particular, this sentence:
"Any sensible limit would be higher than the number of guns used in a vast majority of mass shootings."
I'm saying that a limit under 7 would be absolutely, unquestionably oppressive and intolerable, and that a limit of 7 or above wouldn't do jack shit to stop mass shootings.

 No.5151

>>5150
How is it "oppressive" to tell people that can't have more than half a dozen deadly weapons?

 No.5152

>>5146
>The governments been doing quite a few horrific things in plain sight lately, why fear the dark when the light isn't much better
... That does absolutely nothing to address the concern. If anything it makes it worse.

>>5147
So, because of a single event, with a ton of other points of failure no less, despite that the same could be done with far fewer than that, and was essentially chosen to be done mostly for the fun of it, we still need to restrict the number people can purchase?

You called me hyperbolic, claiming my scenarios or suggestions were in extreme, get you seriously proposed a minimal legislation that doesn't affect hardly anything, and wouldn't have lessons the number dead, and only serve two inconvenience people, as one of your primary changes?
Really?

There is no benefit to what you propose, and significant cost. It isn't even a case of one life. This would do nothing.

>Even the police have been known to use their guns irresponsibly and they go through a lot of training before they are given their guns.
A yearly qualification which is often the only time these people shoot is hardly much in the way of training.

None the less come up the point was that the police are using flamethrower to put out the fire as you put it. You're point is nonsensical as result

>Are you suggesting we train all teachers the same way we train police officers on gun safety?
I would actually suggest that we should have gun safety into the curriculum.
But sure, given the really limited level of training police get, I don't really have a major problem putting teachers who want to get their concealed carry into their place of work through the same.

 No.5153

>>5151
People should be free to do trade consensualy
Especially when that limitation does nothing to save any lives

 No.5154

>>5151
Please read >>5140 and >>5142 and you'll find the answer to your question.  Different guns are suitable for different purposes.

 No.5155

>>5152

>There is no benefit to what you propose

There is. Saving lives. You're only saying it wouldn't because of a bias towards... I don't know, owning lots of guns? I'm not quite sure why you are so against the idea that people don't need 40 murder machines.

>and significant cost.
Virtually no cost to anyone law-abiding and sane. Which, if you haven't noticed, I am assuming you are a part of.

>None the less come up the point was that the police are using flamethrower to put out the fire as you put it. You're point is nonsensical as result

I mean, they kind of are. I just showed you a video of someone being killed because the police are irresponsible with their guns. It's bad enough that the police get to do that unchecked, and you want to put that power, the power to choose who lives or dies, in the hands of "teachers" who we don't know anything about. Teachers can be racist, bigoted, selfish, corrupt and evil just as easy as any other person. And yet you want to lay the lives of CHILDREN in their hands to choose their fate because it's easier than being mildly inconvenienced when you want to buy a gun. It's the height of selfishness.


>>5153
You could argue that people "should be free" not to wear a seatbelt. But I don't hear your calling seatbelt laws "oppressive".

 No.5156

>>5155
> Saving lives.
You haven't shown a single instance where a limit of number of guns would have saved a single life.  

 No.5157

>>5156
All those things people with guns went into public places and shot a bunch of people. Isn't that what we are talking about?

You haven't given a good reason why someone would need more than 6 guns beyond vague notions of "freedom".

 No.5158

File: 1590537898473.jpg (18.68 KB, 410x351, 410:351, trashcat.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>5157
>All those things people with guns went into public places and shot a bunch of people. Isn't that what we are talking about?
You haven't shown that any of them would have been any less deadlier with only a single firearm.

 No.5159

>>5157
>You haven't given a good reason why someone would need more than 6 guns beyond vague notions of "freedom".
Sure I did!  See >>5140.  And you never gave a good reason why someone would need more than 6 video games beyond vague notions of "freedom".

 No.5160

>>5158
>You have shown
*You haven't shown

 No.5161

>>5159
No one "needs" more than 6 video games. But video games don't kill people. And if they did, if Ifound out people were walking into places with 20 video games and (somehow) murdering people with them, then yeah, I would go along with restricting the sale of video games. Without question. Like, it's weird to think I would do any less.

 No.5162

>>5155
Who would it have saved?
He didn't have to use that many guns, and most of them don't.
Who would have magically saved, for him to be limited to only 7?

>Virtually no cost to anyone law-abiding and sane.
I am law-abiding, I consider it a cost. Do you want to say I'm insane?
I don't care what you want to assume. I am telling you. Either call me a liar, call me insane, or understand there's more than one position.

>It's bad enough that the police get to do that unchecked, and you want to put that power, the power to choose who lives or dies, in the hands of "teachers" who we don't know anything about.
I can at the very least guarantee it will be easier to pursue a murder charge on somebody who isn't a cop.
Police are unaccountable by design. Private citizens do not enjoy that privilege.

To be dead honest with you, I trust my federal citizen with a firearm far more than the police.
Again, I can at least pursue a case against them. The police, by design, it's difficult.

>And yet you want to lay the lives of CHILDREN in their hands to choose their fate because it's easier than being mildly inconvenienced when you want to buy a gun. It's the height of selfishness.
Maybe that's how you see it, giving your exceptionally hostile view of anyone who supports these important rights. But, that's your own bigotry speaking. Not reality.

I lay the lives of children in the hands of these teachers because I recognize violence is the supreme authority from which all authority is derived.
It's necessity. Not selfishness. because the police have demonstrated that they cannot be trusted. That when the shooting starts, they will stand to the side far too often. This is why the right to self defense is so vital. because ultimately, the police are not here to protect you. The police will not protect you. When seconds count, they're minutes away, or worse, waiting for backup.

since I do not believe any proposal outside of a complete removal of all firearms, including illegal ones would ever actually stopp Mass shooting events, mitigation through evacuation and through the right to defend yourself is key.

>You could argue that people "should be free" not to wear a seatbelt. But I don't hear your calling seatbelt laws "oppressive
I actually do. this is because of seatbelt is a measure to save yourself. Not anybody else.
You should not be forced to do things for your own safety.
If I wish to leap from a bridge, I ought to be allowed to do so

 No.5163

>>5157
Would vote shooting event be lesson by the limitation of only 7 firearms?
I seen no logical reason to believe they would whatsoever.

 No.5164

>>5161
>But video games don't kill people.
Not directly.  But arguably they encourage school shootings by children who play them.  

 No.5165

>>5161
Then why do people get alcohol? Nobody needs it, it kills plenty, including with drunk driving.
Why were you against banning alcohol?

 No.5166

>>5164
And AGAIN, yes, that's arguable. But it's also argued that that's bullshit and it's been debunked many times. But you can't say that "guns are used in shootings" is arguable. It very much is not.

>>5165
I never said that I personally wasn't against that. I don't drink myself. But that's besides the point. They've tried to ban alcohol, but it did not work. So they regulate it closely. You aren't allowed to be drunk in public, sell it to people under a certain age, after a certain time, in certain areas, and if your establishment sells alcohol, you can choose to cut someone off if they've had too much. Alcohol is very closely regulated BECAUSE we understand that it can be dangerous if used irresponsibly. So why are you so against the idea of gun regulation? Are you against all of those alcohol regulations too?

 No.5167

>>5166
Countless people still die as a direct result of alcohol despite all those regulations.
"If it saves lives" was important, right? Why not restrict people to one drink at a time? Or limit the alcohol per volume count? Forbid it to those who are found guilty in related criminal cases? This would have far more impact than guns do.

 No.5168

>>5162

>I am law-abiding, I consider it a cost. Do you want to say I'm insane?

I am assuming you are both law-abiding and sane. Which is why i'm so perplexed as to why you are against any sort of gun regulation that isn't "more guns."

> Private citizens do not enjoy that privilege.

Unless it's "self-defense" right? I think you are refusing to understand this because you won't be Treyvon. You will never be Treyvon. And so you can't understand what it's like to hear someone say we should arm all the Zimmerman's so they can come after us in the night. You'll never be Philando Castille either, and be executed for exercising your right to own (oh so many) guns.

But I am asking you to have a little empathy and look at the world beyond your own experiences and see that maybe there's bigger things going on than your desire to play John Wick.

 No.5169

>>5167
Those are all good ideas that would probably warrant a real discussion, but it would be hard to propose to people who have gotten used to drinking freely, regardless of how much sense it makes or how many accidents it would prevent. People wouldn't hear it because of "muh freedoms".

Kinda sounds like this situation in a way.

 No.5170

File: 1590539282690.jpg (36.91 KB, 500x404, 125:101, 1466249648480.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>5166
>But you can't say that "guns are used in shootings" is arguable. It very much is not.
My contention is that limiting a person to N guns is bullshit and debunked as not actually preventing any deaths.

 No.5171

>>5170
But you asserted that without any actual evidence. And you gave no reason to why it's "bullshit", either.

 No.5172

File: 1590539485442.jpeg (76.5 KB, 800x500, 8:5, s800.jpeg) ImgOps Google

>>5171
>But you asserted that without any actual evidence.
I didn't give a proper citation, but it's well known that you can put 1000+ rounds thru a barrel without it failing from overheating.

 No.5173

>>5168
So obviously it isn't a matter of being sane or law abiding as you put it.
I have explained my reasons, you seem fit to ignore them.

as already mentioned, the case of trayvon Martin appears to be straightforward self-defense.
I do not know why you can't understand this, and you refuse to accept this.
bringing it up again does nothing to convince me. It only makes you look like a bigot who only cares about the race of the victim.

>But I am asking you to have a little empathy and look at the world beyond your own experiences and see that maybe there's bigger things going on than your desire to play John Wick.
I would echo the same sort of thing to you.
You have exhibited exceptional lack of empathy towards your idealological opposition, insisting things that they do not believe. Repeatedly, you've been seen you a that you would have to be insane to hold a view. You have repeatedly claimed that people who are pro gun are opposed to saving lives, or value the rights of guns over people.
This seems to exhibit to me and exceptional lack of empathy.
you certainly do not seem to have any empathy whatsoever for Zimmerman. I have to wonder, I this point, if empathy is simply reserve for people of your own skin color.

 No.5174

>>5169
Then why not go out and advocate for that, instead of guns? Alcohol definitely kills far more than guns do.

Is it because guns are scary?

 No.5175

>>5172
But you said yourself earlier that sometimes guns malfunction and jam. It's why shooters nearly always bring more than one gun.

 No.5176

>>5174
As someone with my background, let me tell you, alcohol is scary.


>Then why not go out and advocate for that, instead of guns?

Because alcohol is more regulated than guns right now. And that shouldn't be.

 No.5177

>>5171
Then again I will ask you, who will it save?
What shooting situation required more than 7 guns?

 No.5178

>>5176
That is objectively false.
alcohol is definitely not regulated more than guns car and whoever told you that is either a liar or an idiot.

 No.5179

>>5177
I've already mentioned Las Vegas where the shooter had 47 guns.

>>5178
You're required to have a driver's licences to drive a car around, so guns are at the very least less regulated than cars.

 No.5180

File: 1590539943211.jpg (60.71 KB, 1024x768, 4:3, pers6.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>5175
Yes, there's a small chance that they'll have a squib load or something like that.  But limiting a person to only a single gun is absolutely insane.  You'd be completely unarmed when you've field-stripped your gun for cleaning.

>>5176
>Because alcohol is more regulated than guns right now. And that shouldn't be.
Huh?  The process for buying a gun is definitely a lot more regulated than buying alcohol.  You don't need to fill out a form to buy alcohol.  In some states, you don't even need ID if you look like you're clearly over 21 years old.

 No.5181

>>5179
>I've already mentioned Las Vegas where the shooter had 47 guns.
That doesn't respond to the question asked of you.  Note the word "required" in >>5177.

 No.5182

>>5173
Your empathy is clouded.

Also, accusing me of racism. Dick move. I never accused you of racism, I accused you having a lack of empathy to the plight of people unlike you. Don't make excuses for those who cause that plight.

 No.5184

>>5181
"Required" is impossible to quantify here. If he used more than one gun, then it's proof.

>>5180
>But limiting a person to only a single gun is absolutely insane

I didn't say that we would. I thought we agreed 7 was a good starting place to limit guns. No one could possibly need more than 7 guns.

 No.5185

>>5179
How would the Las Vegas shooting been changed if he was limited to 7?
Because as far as I can see, it wouldn't have been. He essentially changed guns for the kicks.

>You're required to have a driver's licences to drive a car around, so guns are at the very least less regulated than cars.
I have already address this at several points throughout this thread. I do not know why you are unable to hear information that runs contrary to your beliefs.

you are not required to have a license in order to buy a car. You are not required to have a license in order to operate a car. To claim that a car is regulated more than a gun is an objectively false statement.

 No.5186

File: 1590540305230.jpg (61.55 KB, 600x449, 600:449, 1442060744593.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>5184
> If he used more than one gun, then it's proof.
Proof of what?

>>5184
>I thought we agreed 7 was a good starting place to limit guns. No one could possibly need more than 7 guns.
Well allowing people to have 7 guns but prohibiting an 8th won't stop any mass shooting deaths.  Nobody is going to have squib loads on 7 guns in a row.  It would be like winning the lottery and then immediately getting struck by lightning.

 No.5187

>>5185
Then perhaps your state has different regulations for drivers licences. Tell me exactly what a driver's licenses is for and what it allows you to do, because it clearly does not to nothing.

 No.5188

>>5186
Then the limit should be lower. 7 is too high, how about 4? Maybe a certain number in each category of gun. Maybe you can have 4 hand guns but only 2 deadly-ass machine guns.

 No.5189

>>5187
A license is required to drive on public highways.  You can drive on private property without a license.

 No.5190

>>5189
Many states do not have any laws against open carry. So you are quite literally allowed to have a gun in places you could not have a car without a licence.

Are you arguing against open carry?

 No.5191

>>5190
Huh?  The point that Curious Cat was making is that you don't need a driver's license to buy a car or to operate a car on private land, while you do need to pass a NICS check to buy a gun and you need to not be a prohibited person (under 18 U.S. Code § 922) to possess a gun even on private property.

 No.5192

>>5191
Maybe "prohibited persons" needs to be broader.

 No.5193

>>5182
I would say the same to you.

you have accuse me of plenty in this thread. I have no reason not to accuse you of the same, especially when you demonstrate such a heavy handed bias that way.
You're keen to give as much benefit of the doubt as possible to Trayvon while refusing the same for Zimmerman. The circumstances of the case as is make the likelihood that it was justified. And that isn't even what is required, given we always presume innocence.

I would certainly be surprised if you gave that benefit of a doubt to somebody who was white. As is,  it looks to me like a clear case of racial bias.

 No.5194

>>5187
It let's you drive on public roads.
Private property does not require you to have a license.

 No.5195

>>5188
Again, you presume that handguns are perfectly safe, despite the fact as has been provided to you that's pistols account for a greater percentage in math shootings.

Also, to my knowledge no mess shooting event has been done with a machine gun

 No.5196

File: 1590541082769.jpg (70.68 KB, 800x800, 1:1, 23319303_10154847905371697….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>5193
If someone chased down a innocent white kid in the dark and shot him in cold blood with no remorse when he was doing nothing wrong, yeah, I would say it was a tragedy his life was cut short so senselessly. I'd also be just as pissed if the person who shot him got away with the murder.

>>5195
"Machine gun" was a slip on my part, I was not being careful with terminology to avoid pedanticness. I meant AR-15 type weapons.

 No.5197

>>5192
>Maybe "prohibited persons" needs to be broader.
Most Americans, whether prohibited persons or not, need to be less broad.

 No.5198

>>5196
The AR-15 used in those shootings were not machine guns.
The reason I'm pointing this out is that the gun control debate is one exceptionally heavily populated by misinformation and general ignorance.
making sure we actually know what and AR-15 is, is very important.
I am going to repeat a question I asked earlier; would a mini 14 be acceptable?

>If someone chased down a innocent white kid in the dark and shot him in cold blood with no remorse when he was doing nothing wrong, yeah, I would say it was a tragedy his life was cut short so senselessly
so would I. Good thing that's not what happened though.

 No.5199

>>5192
So are you admitting that guns are not regulated less than cars, or what?

Because you're statement here doesn't refute that are. It only act to advocate for a further increase in that divide

 No.5200

File: 1590541449930.png (116.61 KB, 660x908, 165:227, same-rifle-different-outfi….png) ImgOps Google

>>5188
>Then the limit should be lower. 7 is too high,
We've already established that people often need at least 7 guns for various purposes.

>>5196
>I meant AR-15 type weapons.
Do you consider the bottom gun in this pic to be an "AR-15-type weapon"?  Because it is only cosmetically different from the top rifle.  In fact, you can take the top rifle and change its stock so it becomes the bottom rifle.  It would literally be the same firearm, just looking different.

 No.5201

>>5198
And I admitted that I slipped up and called them "machine guns" forgetting that gun enthusiasts like to be pedantic about exact terminolgy hoping to deflect the conversation to that of minutia about gun parts and names.

>would a mini 14 be acceptable?
I don't know what that is. If it's classified as an AR-15, but is atypical for them, then that's kind of trying to deflect the real conversation by playing semantics.

>>5199
Depends on what you mean by "regulated". But which is more or less regulated is not the real topic of conversation. Guns should be more regulated regardless of how regulated they are compared to cars. Cars are things people need to get to work every day. They aren't designed to kill, when they kill it's usually accidental and incidental. Guns ARE designed to kill.

>>5200
I'm unclear as to how the top picture is an "automatic".

 No.5202

>>5201
>I'm unclear as to how the top picture is an "automatic".
It's semi-automatic, not fully automatic.

 No.5203

>>5202
If it has the same rate of fire as the bottom gun then all three are just as dangerous, even if the top one looks different. If the bottom one has a different rate of fire because of it's attachments, then it's functionally different.

 No.5204

File: 1590542059356.jpg (1.17 MB, 2844x1548, 79:43, ejector-rod-go-whack.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>5201
>pedantic about exact terminolgy
lol wut?  There is HUGE difference between a machine gun (fully automatic => fires multiple rounds on a single trigger press) vs semi-automatic (fires only one round per trigger press).

>>5203
>If it has the same rate of fire as the bottom gun then all three are just as dangerous
Yes, they all have the same rate of fire.  And keep in mind that this Ruger 10/22 has been a popular first rifle for children since it was introduced in 1964.

 No.5205

>>5201
See >>5123 for the mini 14
>forgetting that gun enthusiasts like to be pedantic about exact terminolgy hoping to deflect the conversation to that of minutia about gun parts and names.
Because it means the difference between being fully automatic, and semi-automatic.

Pretty major difference in terms of gun regulation.

>. If it's classified as an AR-15,
the AR-15 is the only gun that is classified as an AR-15, given that the AR-15 is a type of gun, much in the same way a Jeep Wrangler is one type of vehicle.

 No.5206

>Cars are things people need to get to work every day. They aren't designed to kill, when they kill it's usually accidental and incidental. Guns ARE designed to kill.
Even if we accept that, which I don't, Cars still kill far more people than guns.

 No.5207

>>5204
>>5205

>Yes, they all have the same rate of fire.

Then they are all equally dangerous.  But not all guns have the same rate of fire, do they. So perhaps that is a better way to categorize which guns to restrict over more vague (and easier to be pedantic about) distinctions like "machine gun."

 No.5208

>>5207
>more vague (and easier to be pedantic about) distinctions like "machine gun."
The term "machine gun" isn't very vague at all, unless you consider unusual things like bump stocks.  It has a rather clear legal definition.  

 No.5209

>>5206
But cars have a primary intended purpose that isn't killing. Guns do not.  And because that primary purpose of cars is necessary in society and because cars causing accidental death is impossible to completely prevent, we have regulated cars to try and mitigate those risks. You could argue we should do more, but that's a different debate I'd gladly engage you on if you made that thread. but this debate is about guns, not about cars.

Why are you so against the idea of regulating guns when you seem fine with regulating cars?

 No.5210

>>5209
>But cars have a primary intended purpose that isn't killing. Guns do not.
Sure they do!  Target practice and plinking!

 No.5211

File: 1590542569467.jpg (24.95 KB, 750x400, 15:8, competition-target-model.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>5210
E.g., this gun was specifically designed for competitive target shooting.

 No.5212

>>5210
That's a secondary purpose created as a training exercise to do their main purpose. Which is killing. Why do you think they sell man-shaped targets for those sports?

 No.5213


 No.5214

>>5211
That specific gun. But guns in general are weapons designed to kill. That's why they were invented.

 No.5215

File: 1590542718262.jpg (147.88 KB, 510x600, 17:20, 1480786124186.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>5214
OK, but what's your point?  Sometimes killing is necessary, either for hunting deer or for defending yourself against violent criminals.

 No.5216

>>5207
No, but the fire rate for most semi auto firearms is not far off from one another, in terms of practical rate.
Basically, how fast your trigger pull is.

 No.5217

>>5215
My POINT was that cars aren't designed for killing and guns are. So it's like comparing a knife to an apple, because sometimes people choke on apples.

 No.5218

>>5217
>My POINT was that cars aren't designed for killing and guns are.
So what though?

 No.5219

>>5218
Did you read the second sentence?

 No.5220

File: 1590543067487.jpg (91.15 KB, 700x950, 14:19, 1474737652399.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>5219
Yeah, but what difference does the intended purpose make?  Seems pretty irrelevant to me.

 No.5221

>>5209
I do not care about primary intended purpose. I care about the reality of the situation.
Cars, factually, kill more people.

Guns, factually,  regulated more heavily than cars.
Despite the fact that they kill far fewer.

It's not that I am for regulating cars, it's not the argument of "one life" falls apart when you can point to the hypocrisy I was a regulations on cars, and the regulations on guns.

 No.5222

>>5217
If people continue to choke on apples far more than they get stabbed by knives, if I were concerned about lives, I would be focusing on the apples.

 No.5223

>>5220
I... don't know how? Guns are made for killing. Cars aren't. Cars have an intended purpose beyond killing. Guns don't. When cars kill, it's accidental. When guns kill (baring unlikely circumstances) it's intentional. You cannot compare these things for those reason. They aren't comparable.

>>5221
>>5222
Cars are necessary and guns are not. Japan exists just fine without a civilian population with guns. With far less gun deaths. So your argument is dishonest.

 No.5224

>>5223
I disagree. Japan has guns, it's just guns are monopolized by the government.
I do not think that is a good idea, personally. I value self defense too much.

Your earlier comments about fire rate worry me.
How many times do you think in AR-15 can fire after you pull the trigger?
This aside, the fire rate is really used to determine the leathality of any given firearm. why do you think fire right in a semi-automatic rifle matter so much in that regard?

 No.5225

>>5224
Depends. Normally, I think they fire once per pull of the trigger. But I've heard they can be modified to keep firing if you hold the trigger down. That selling a rifle with this capability already is disallowed, but that one can easily purchase the parts needed to modify it to do so easily and legally.

 No.5226

File: 1590544047511.png (451.44 KB, 446x595, 446:595, 1584216723582.png) ImgOps Google

>>5223
>When cars kill, it's accidental.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-ramming_attack

>You cannot compare these things for those reason. They aren't comparable.
I don't care about the history of the design intentions or whether the death was accidental or intentional; if I get killed in a car accident, I'm just as dead as if criminal shot me.

>Cars are necessary and guns are not. Japan exists just fine without a civilian population with guns
Japan isn't the US.  In rural areas in the US, you really do need a gun.  And in highly urban areas, you don't need a car.

 No.5227

>>5225
Well, you heard incorrectly. Doing so is exceptionally illegal. It's also quite difficult.
you can modify it to fire all of the magazine in one pulle, but you won't be able to stop

Why do you regard firerate as the measurement for if a firearm should be restricted?
What do you think the fire rate of an AR-15 is?

 No.5228

File: 1590544222653.jpg (66.02 KB, 600x680, 15:17, behind-corner.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>5224
> it's just guns are monopolized by the government.
And the Yakuza!

 No.5229

>>5227
Well, because bullets are what kill people, and the fast a gun can shoot out bullets, the faster it can kill people. Seems pretty straight forward to me. But other things should also be considered. The type of bullets the gun shoots, for example. Some bullets are designed to kill more effectively.

 No.5230

>>5225
> But I've heard they can be modified to keep firing if you hold the trigger down.
Such a modification is highly illegal.  It turns the semi-auto into a machine gun.  Don't put shoestring on your AR-15 if you value your dog's life!

 No.5231

>>5229
>Some bullets are designed to kill more effectively.
And some bullets are designed to kill different animals.  Like a .22LR is designed to kill small game and varmints, whereas a 5.56×45mm NATO is designed to kill humans.

 No.5232

>>5229
I'd personally be inclined to take five 22LR shots over a 308 round any day of the week.
Firerate is far from everything.
Accuracy and payload matter far, far more.

Again, the vast majority of semi-automatic rifles have effectively the same rate of fire. This is because fire right is largely dictated by how fast you can pull the trigger

 No.5233

>>5230
>Don't put shoestring on your AR-15 if you value your dog's life!

I don't know what any of that means.

>>5232
Well I never said fire rate was everything. Just that we need to regulate the more deadly guns in some way. You argue designations like "AR-15" is too broad, but that doesn't mean there isn't some way to categorize these weapons.

 No.5234

File: 1590545194578.jpg (143.61 KB, 500x643, 500:643, cat-sitting-on-boar.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>5232
Personally, I would say that shot placement ranks first, followed by payload, followed by firing rate.  A lady once killed a 900-lb grizzly bear with a single .22LR headshot.  But that took mad skills to pull off, of course!  I certainly wouldn't recommend a .22LR for bear hunting!

 No.5235

File: 1590545425594.jpg (75.9 KB, 637x824, 637:824, ATF-shoestring-machine-gun….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>5233
>I don't know what any of that means.
You can affix a shoestring to a semi-automatic rifle so that the shoestring keeps pulling the trigger for you.  But if you do that, the ATF will come and shoot your doggos and put you in prison for manufacturing an unregistered machine gun.

 No.5236

>>5233
Okay. Like what?
What makes an AR-15 more killy than any other semi-automatic rifle?

>>5234
Pretty much how I see it. Accuracy is always King, so you should go for has big as you can personally handle. for some people, that might mean going from 9 to 380, at least for Carry guns. Capacity also matters, for that. But, realistically, if you can't get it out in a few seconds, it's not vital.

 No.5237

File: 1590545643141.jpg (70.68 KB, 800x800, 1:1, 23319303_10154847905371697….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>5236
>What makes an AR-15 more killy than any other semi-automatic rifle?

That's what we need to figure out. Because again, judging from it's usage, it's a popular choice for mass shooters for some reason.

 No.5238

>>5237
Probably because it is one of the most common firearms in the United States.

If I am entirely honest with you, given is popularity, I find it rather shocking that it is used as rarely as it is.

 No.5239

>>5238
And no one really needs one. So why aren't we talking about regulating them? We have massive amounts of these super deadly weapons that no one really needs, being used to kill people quite frequently.

 No.5240

>>5239
>So why aren't we talking about regulating them?
See >>4948 and >>4956.

 No.5241

>>5240
You keep bringing up drunk drivers and things like that as if mass shootings are inevitable and unavoidable. I assure you, they are not.

 No.5242

>>5239
Nobody needs alcohol either. F
or a car capable of going more than 35mph. Or private pool.

 No.5243

>>5241
Do you think that's drunk driving is inevitable and impossible to stop?

Surely if we had no alcohol, we would have no drunk drivers

 No.5244

>>5241
You keep ignoring the point that the difference between AR15-style weapons and traditional hunting rifles is like the difference in paint jobs on cars.  Banning AR-15s makes as little sense as banning red automotive paint in the hypothetical I posed in >>4948.

 No.5245

>>5243
>>5242

Banning alcohol is a different debate. I'd be OK with that because I don't drink. But it's still you derailing the conversation.

Taking away cars takes away their primary usage of transportation as well. Guns don't have a primary use outside of killing that regulating them would hinder. Do you actually have any real arguments to defend why people need AR-15s that doesn't hinge on other things technically being deadly? Because it feels dishonest for you to keep bringing that up like you don't understand cars have a use outside of killing.

 No.5246

>>5245
>Taking away cars takes away their primary usage of transportation as well.
Neither of the posts you were replying to suggested taking away cars.

 No.5247

>>5246
Then why are cars being brought up? We are talking about regulating guns and people keep bringing up cars and alcohol like they have anything to do with this conversation.

 No.5248

>>5245
>Guns don't have a primary use outside of killing
So?  Sometimes you need to kill to preserve your life.

 No.5249

>>5247
Note that post >>5242 mentioned restricting cars to speeds less than 35mph.  That is different than completely banning cars.

 No.5250

>>5248
How many people have you killed to preserve your life?

 No.5251

>>5247
>We are talking about regulating guns and people keep bringing up cars and alcohol like they have anything to do with this conversation.
It is demonstrate a flaw in the form of the argument for banning AR-15s.  Like this:
1. If the form of argument A supports banning AR-15s, then the form of argument A also supports banning alcohol.
2. Banning alcohol is absurd.
3. Therefore argument A is flawed.

 No.5252

File: 1590548225319.jpg (328.8 KB, 1278x1025, 1278:1025, 1466248520331.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>5250
>How many people have you killed to preserve your life?
Zero, by the grace of God.  And hopefully it will continue to be zero.  But I am lucky to live in a nice neighborhood with low crime.  Other people are not so fortunate and have a much greater risk of needing to use deadly force against a home invader.

 No.5253

>>5245
Then why not advocate the banning of alcohol, giving that it kills far more people.
this is my problem here. You seem to be putting a lot of effort into guns, but none at all into alcohol.

It's almost like the deaths don't actually matter to you.
>Do you actually have any real arguments to defend why people need AR-15s that doesn't hinge on other things technically being deadly?
Sure. It's not the bill of needs.

I don't "need" freedom. People can survive without it. I don't need the right to free speech. I don't need the right to do as I wish with my property. I don't need the right to go where I please.
A slave can have what he needs to survive, but not his liberty.

There are plenty of other firearm that do what an AR-15 does. I could always get one of those. Especially since near as I can tell what you propose will leave those arms intact.
I could always use one of them for what I need. I rather doubt you care about the mini 14, for instance, so for the threat of multiple assailants, there is always that.
The question is ultimately wine should I have to. I don't believe it will save anybody's lives.

 No.5254

>>5247
Because you claim it is about lives, yet you do not care about things that killed far more people.

 No.5255

>>5252
Should not someone use less-than-lethal force and/or try to de-escalate the situation before resulting in killing someone? To not do so demonstrates a lack of value for human life.

>>5251
Completely banning alcohol is absurd. Regulating it clearly isn't, as it is already being regulated. Further regulating it past the point where it is now but before outright banning it is also not absurd up to a certain point, wherever that point lies.

Therefore regulating AR-15s is not absurd.

 No.5256

>>5253
Your hobby should not come at the cost of another's life. An empathetic person would understand this.

 No.5257

>>5256
It doesn't.

 No.5258

>>5255
Have to? No. Should? personally I would argue no, as I do not think you have a moral obligation to that person at all, if they've put you in a position where you have that question. there is absolutely no reason for you to risk your life for the sake of your attacker.
If it comes at absolutely no consequence to you, maybe. But, I done is the surest fire way to end a threat.
It's more reliable by far.

As to the question of the value of human life?
I consider a victims life more important than an attacker's.

 No.5259

>>5253
>Sure. It's not the bill of needs.

Its also not the bill of unchanging laws of nature.

It was once legal in this country for someone to own me as property. That was changed. I see no reason why this can't also be modified to protect people. Machine guns did not exist when the bill of rights was written.

>>5257
it very much does. if you want to know a number I can give you a a list of all the mass shooting casualties of  the last decade.

 No.5260

>>5258
So we now find the root of this whole debacle. You freely admit that some people's lives have more value than others. If it is possible for you to devaule a life in this instance, it's not ridiculous to assume you devalue life in others.

 No.5261

>>4991
OP has been solved. Ruducing gun deaths is NOT a shared value here. Gun enthusiast value some lives more than others.

 No.5262

File: 1590550010539.jpg (57.55 KB, 500x500, 1:1, 4xt02ysrv0jk.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>5255
>Should not someone use less-than-lethal force and/or try to de-escalate the situation before resulting in killing someone?
If I detect someone trying to break down my door, I'll try to de-escalate by issuing a verbal warning to leave immediately.  If they ignore my attempt to de-escalate, I'll shoot to stop the threat if they break down my door.  There is no equally effective less-than-lethal that I can use.

 No.5263

>>5259
That is not entirely true. There were more than a few firearms up which were capable of such, they were usually just artillery pieces.
given their presents however, I have absolutely no reason whatsoever to down that the founding fathers considered that possibility. After all, it seems like a straightforward development in technology.
They were not stupid people.
It seems to me they thought of that.

As for slavery, again I would remind you of the utility that minorities found through arms.
when the law would not protect them, or worse would stand directly against them, arms became necessary.
I am not so hopeful in this world to think that won't be true again. Nor do I have that kind of faith in government.

 No.5264

>>5259
>it very much does. if you want to know a number I can give you a a list of all the mass shooting casualties of  the last decade.
Irrelevant. My hobby is not Mass murder.
I have not killed anyone.
My hobby of shooting paper Targets hasn't killed anyone either

 No.5265

File: 1590550202993.jpg (153.52 KB, 1200x800, 3:2, 1nbg66quldpc.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>5255
>Therefore regulating AR-15s is not absurd.
OK, but we already regulate AR-15s.  You need to fill out ATF Form 4473 and pass the NICS background check to buy one.  If you want universal background checks even for private sales, I won't argue against that as long as it isn't overly burdensome.  (And yes, it is simple to make it non-burdensome.)

 No.5266

>>5260
yes, I do consider the life of a murderer to be of significantly less her value then the life of their victim.

I do not think that is a far-fetched morality, nor do I think that it is one not shared by most people

 No.5267

>>5261
>OP has been solved. Ruducing gun deaths is NOT a shared value here.
That was already stated in the OP!  See >>4991:
>I know, for example, reducing gun deaths is not a shared value -- some deaths are seen as justified

 No.5268

>>5265
Personally, at this point, I won't accept anything unless there's a compromise. And by that I mean, we get something in return.
Remove the NFA for example.

 No.5269

File: 1590550657120.png (60.26 KB, 876x319, 876:319, sbr.png) ImgOps Google

>>5268
>Remove the NFA for example.
The absurd restrictions on SBRs and SBSes should be the first to go.  Completely pointless law now.  I wonder if Beautiful Butterfly / Attractive Crow would agree to this trade.

 No.5270

File: 1590551189193.png (122.95 KB, 859x500, 859:500, maxim-9.png) ImgOps Google

>>5269
And also suppressors.  The law against suppressors is retarded.  This pistol is 135-139 dB, louder than police sirens, jackhammers, chainsaws, etc.  There is no reason it should be illegal without going thru the NFA bullshit.  Maybe even the Supreme Court will strike down the law against suppressors if Congress doesn't.

 No.5271

>>5266
> I do consider the life of a murderer to be of significantly less her value then the life of their victim.

We aren't talking about a murderer, at the point where we are talking about ending his life, he has not killed anyone that you are aware of.

Also, you are wrong to assume that everyone thinks that any life can be devalued by any action.

>>5265
If the majority of mass shootings are committed using legally-acquired guns, then it's clear the current regulations are not enough.

 No.5272

>>5271
>If the majority of mass shootings are committed using legally-acquired guns, then it's clear the current regulations are not enough.
That doesn't mean that we need more restrictions on guns though.  For example, perhaps having universal health care for mental health would be enough to bring down the number of mass shootings.  Or perhaps some other social programs to help people who would otherwise become mass shooters.

 No.5273

>>5272
Other countries successfully lessen mass shootings by regulating guns. There's no reason to think that the same would not work here.

 No.5274

>>5271
I do not draw moral distinction between a murderer, and someone trying to murder.
They are moral equivalent to me.

>Also, you are wrong to assume that everyone thinks that any life can be devalued by any action.
I do not believe that's true, given the simple fact that most people are not pacifists.

 No.5275

File: 1590568034613.jpg (149.42 KB, 863x874, 863:874, nGmGqIn.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>5273
>Other countries successfully lessen mass shootings by regulating guns.
[citation needed in regards to causation]
Also, I'd much rather live as a free man and risk the very small chance of dying in a mass shooting than to betray the principles of freedom and liberty that our ancestors fought and died for.

 No.5276

File: 1590570657818.png (298.56 KB, 716x609, 716:609, 233677.png) ImgOps Google

>>5273
Also, what do you think of the compromise suggested in >>5268?  The only reasonable gun-control law you suggested in this thread was universal background checks.  So, what existing gun-control laws would you give up in exchange for that?  How about deregulating SBRs and suppressors?

 No.5277

>>5274
>I do not draw moral distinction between a murderer, and someone trying to murder.

Which means you are willing to devalue someone's life before they've even done anything.

>>5275
>Also, I'd much rather live as a free man and risk the very small chance of dying in a mass shooting t

that's a very selfish way of looking at it and it shows a complete disregard for the lives of other people.

 No.5278

File: 1590598823021.jpg (10.8 KB, 333x250, 333:250, 1475642863128.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>5277
>that's a very selfish way of looking at it and it shows a complete disregard for the lives of other people.
Huh?  It's not like I'm taking all the freedom and dumping the shooting deaths on other people.  Everybody shares in the freedom and also shares in risk of mass shootings.  So, it's not selfish at all.

 No.5279

File: 1590599102736.jpg (235.09 KB, 500x500, 1:1, kitten-with-yarn.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>5277
>Which means you are willing to devalue someone's life before they've even done anything.
Attempted murder is a crime.  It's not nothing.

 No.5280

>>5278
You spoke exclusively of yourself in that last post. You said that you valued "freedom" (which I assume you mean the freedom to own deadly weapons) over the "low" risk of dying in a mass shooting. You are putting your right to own something over the lives of other people because you feel you personally are at a low risk. It's a completely selfish attitude and it shows you care more about your right to own guns than other people's right to live.

>>5279
Is this why you're so keen on finding Treyvon Martin at fault? So you can more easily devalue his life?

 No.5281

File: 1590601830941.jpg (174.33 KB, 1180x787, 1180:787, 1584217406964.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>5280
>because you feel you personally are at a low risk.
Ah, OK, I see where the miscommunication was.  When I said "low risk", I didn't mean that I personally am at particularly low risk.  I mean that the probability of an average person dying in a mass shooting is very low, much lower than the probability of dying in a car crash.

Let me restate my position in utilitarian ethical terms: The aggregate utility of a society with both freedom and mass shootings is greater than the aggregate utility of a society that prevents mass shootings by stifling freedom, ceteris paribus.

Also, I think you missed >>5276.

 No.5282

>>5280
>Is this why you're so keen on finding Treyvon Martin at fault? So you can more easily devalue his life?
That chain of causality is a bit out of whack.  I tried to evaluate the evidence as objectively as possible, and my conclusion was that Trayvon more-likely-than-not violently attacked Zimmerman.

 No.5283

>>5282
But in your opinion, if Treyvon DID in fact initiate a violent confrontation with this stranger trailing him for no reason, then his life no longer has value in your eyes? He as gone from innocent to "attacker" and thus someone is within their rights to end his life?

>>5281
How unlikely it is to get killed in a shooting shouldn't matter. With a population this big, even the killing of 100 people is statistically speaking, small. But we should not calculate the value of people's lives based on statistics. Mass shootings can be prevented, and so there's no reason why we should not prevent them.

>Also, I think you missed >>5276.
I am against removing any current regulations on guns. I am all for instating more. That should be clear.

 No.5284

File: 1590611813490.jpg (401.01 KB, 1052x1402, 526:701, 9tp5mj11i58g.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>5283
>But in your opinion, if Treyvon DID in fact initiate a violent confrontation with this stranger trailing him for no reason, then his life no longer has value in your eyes?
His life still has value.  It is sad and unfortunate that he had to die.  But it would be worse to prevent Zimmerman from defending himself against death or serious bodily injury from a criminal attack.

>>5283
>How unlikely it is to get killed in a shooting shouldn't matter.
Huh?  That makes no sense at all.  You need to multiply the expected utility of an event by its probability of occurring.  Would you pay $150/year for flood insurance if your local area has never flooded in recorded history?

>But we should not calculate the value of people's lives based on statistics.
But to calculate the expected loss due to a mass shooting, you do need statistics.  You multiply the value of their lives by the probability of them dying.

 No.5285

File: 1590612188560.jpg (203.62 KB, 1920x1018, 960:509, gjnxfnxfnjxfj.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>5283
>I am against removing any current regulations on guns.
Even if that's the only way to enact new regulations like universal background checks?  Do you really think that the gun on the left (which differs from the one on the right only by having a stock instead of an arm brace) should be more restricted than the gun on the right?  It doesn't make any sense to me.  Do you really think that imposing a $200 tax stamp on SBRs is more important than universal background checks?

 No.5286

>>5277
There's a difference between killing someone because "He might murder one day" and killing someone running at you with a knife.

>that's a very selfish way of looking at it and it shows a complete disregard for the lives of other people.
We all benefit from freedom.

 No.5287

File: 1590613037542.jpg (1.37 MB, 1869x3900, 623:1300, IMG_0679.JPG) ImgOps Exif Google

>>5280
>Is this why you're so keen on finding Treyvon Martin at fault? So you can more easily devalue his life?
The facts of the case seem to very much suggest it was self defense.
This goes beyond our typical standard for determining that, as we presume innocence.
The information at hand in regards to that case makes it look pretty heavily like Trayvon initiated the violent confrontation, as evidenced by Zimmerman's injuries.

Why are you so keen on finding Zimmerman at fault? Is it purely because of his race?

 No.5288

>>5283
>But in your opinion, if Treyvon DID in fact initiate a violent confrontation with this stranger trailing him for no reason, then his life no longer has value in your eyes?
I'd describe it as "His life has lesser value than that person he violently attacked".
Or, really, if you want to take the NAP type point of perspective, his actions disregarded the rights of others, so his own rights are consequently forfeit.

There's a difference between saying "no value" and "lesser value".
Though, personally, I tend to go around the route of actions anyway. Value to life is a vague and unquantifiable concept, and so I find it largely worthless as it pertains to moral considerations. A binary look on actions as immoral or moral is better, to me.

>Mass shootings can be prevented, and so there's no reason why we should not prevent them.
Drunk drivings kill far more people. They can be prevented. There's "no reason" why we should not prevent them.

Why are you not an advocate of restrictions on alcohol? Why do you target guns with such vigor, while completely ignoring the dangers of alcohol that kill far more people?
It makes you look hypocritical.

 No.5297

File: 1590724246932.jpg (741.27 KB, 1920x1080, 16:9, tiger-licks-cub.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

In related news, motor vehicles can also be used as defensive weapons to neutralize criminals:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/28/us/fort-leavenworth-soldier-stops-active-shooter-trnd/index.html

 No.5300

>>5287
Zimmerman's race is disputed. Again, it is uncivil to keep accusing me of racism when I have not done so to you.

>>5286
You're only framing it as "freedom" because it benefits your narrative. We aren't allowed to buy plutonium, but somehow that isn't infringing on your "freedom".

>>5284
The fact you dont' afford Martin the same benefit of the doubt is troubling, but I think the issue is here. You say

>His life still has value.

But this person says

>>5288
>"His life has lesser value than that person he attacked".

I think this is the core issue of the gun debate. For some people, life ALWAYS has value. No matter what a person has done. For others the value of one's life can be taken away or dimminished. For those that always value life, a gun has no value. One should always try to de-escalate a sitation and prevent life from being lost, using a deadly weapon is a last resort, when all other options have been exhausted.

For those who believe that life can be devalued, then as soon as they do an action that devalues their life, the best course of action is to end that less-valuable life.

A gun is the absolute best tool to end less valuable lives. To prevent them from owning as many guns as possible prevents them from doing what they feel is the best option to deal with someone with a less-valuable life. This is why the two sides cannot compromise or meet in the middle. We hold completely opposite values on life itself.

 No.5306

File: 1590801434687.gif (1023.29 KB, 227x240, 227:240, 1425106784199.gif) ImgOps Google

>>5300
>The fact you dont' afford Martin the same benefit of the doubt is troubling,
I'm not sure what that is in reference to?

>For those that always value life, a gun has no value.
Huh?  That's not true at all!  Lots of people enjoy shooting paper targets and soda bottles at the range!  And not all lives have equal value.  Most people would agree that the life of a deer is worth less than the life of a human.  And if you eat meat, then you're in no moral position to condemn hunting.  And if a violent home invader is about to kill or rape your children, then obviously you should protect your family even if you need to kill the home invader.

>For those who believe that life can be devalued, then as soon as they do an action that devalues their life, the best course of action is to end that less-valuable life.
Nani???  That doesn't make any sense at all!  My stock portfolio lost a lot of value this year -- but did I end my portfolio as soon as it became devalued?  No!

>We hold completely opposite values on life itself.
I'm not so sure about that.  We might differ mainly in what system of ethics we follow (e.g., consequentialism, deontology, etc.) and its details rather than in axiology.

 No.5312

>>5300
While his race is disputed, he's most certainly not black.

>You're only framing it as "freedom" because it benefits your narrative. We aren't allowed to buy plutonium, but somehow that isn't infringing on your "freedom".
So long as you are able to store it safely without risk to those around you, I think you ought to be.
You can buy uranium ore, and similar samples as I recall.
http://unitednuclear.com/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=2_4

But, yeah, I would consider that an infringement, if I'm not hurting anyone with it.

>. For some people, life ALWAYS has value. No matter what a person has done.
Most people are not pacifists. For good reason. Pacifism is an inherently flawed ideology.

>For those that always value life, a gun has no value.
I'd still have my firearms regardless of my value in life, as the mechanics of them are interesting, and the shooting of them is fun. So, I don't really buy that.

>One should always try to de-escalate a sitation and prevent life from being lost, using a deadly weapon is a last resort, when all other options have been exhausted.
Where possible, maybe. But, putting your life at risk for the sake of a murderer's life is stupid.

>For those who believe that life can be devalued, then as soon as they do an action that devalues their life, the best course of action is to end that less-valuable life.
That's nonsense.
If I've got a 100$ bar of gold, should I throw it out as soon as it drops to only 99$?
Of course not.

>A gun is the absolute best tool to end less valuable lives
No. A bomb is. Or fire, fire works really well too.

>To prevent them from owning as many guns as possible prevents them from doing what they feel is the best option to deal with someone with a less-valuable life
You don't need a ton of guns for that.

>We hold completely opposite values on life itself.
Maybe you do, but I rather doubt this is exactly commonplace for a viewpoint.


[]
[Return] [Go to top]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]