Jump to content
ants

Police - a thin blue line, a wad of cash and scary guns

Recommended Posts

How many people actually defend themself with a gun? It’s not like a killer/robber is going to sportingly wait while you drop your groceries, get out your gun, chamber a round, check the safety or whatever, and then see who’s the best shot.

In recent shootings, armed police officers have died, giving the lie to the claim that more guns=safety

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh good, an invocation of Chicago as an argument about gun crime. Reminds me of the real reason American gun culture is so paranoid and vicious: because this country has marinated for hundreds of years in violent racial paranoia. The belief that black people are violent and oversexed and will riot, rob you, and rape the virtuous white women if there aren't armed enforcers around to keep them down. It's a baked-in racialized fear from the days when white Americans were surrounded by and outnumbered by people they had tortured and abused for generations. American police are the direct descendants of slave-catcher patrols.

I do think that's one thing that often gets ignored by people who think the number of guns is the problem. I mean, yes, it's a problem that Americans have so many guns. But the collection and fetishization of guns is more like a symptom of the violent racist disease in American culture, a product of this country's original sin. Other countries have lots of guns, but they're not as primed for violence against their neighbors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Derfel Cadarn clearly more than you think. 

@DanteGabriel that is absolutely absurd & not near what I said. The fact that you have related my argument about Chicago to something racist says magnitudes about you. 

Clearly, no one here is interested in having a real discussion, so I'm bowing out. :leaving:

Thanks for the chat. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

@Derfel Cadarn clearly more than you think. 

@DanteGabriel that is absolutely absurd & not near what I said. The fact that you have related my argument about Chicago to something racist says magnitudes about you. 

Clearly, no one here is interested in having a real discussion, so I'm bowing out. :leaving:

Thanks for the chat. 

 

Why bring up Chicago then? It's a reliable trope for Republicans arguing in bad faith.

ETA: here, you can learn something, if you're interested in "a real discussion" and not just lazily dropping a Trump White House talking point and shrugging about whether it's valid.

https://www.npr.org/2017/10/05/555580598/fact-check-is-chicago-proof-that-gun-laws-don-t-work

Edited by DanteGabriel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Someone accidentally killing you has no bearing on whether or not you carry a gun or are allowed legally to carry a gun so how does this pertain? 

The bolded is simply not true.  

Are you for real?  So you're saying if more people have more guns there won't be more accidental deaths and injuries?  You believe in a right to self defense, but do you believe in a right to not be shot?

Many studies have been done that have shown having a gun at home doesn't make you safer.  Just for starters there's this

Quote

Hemenway noted that one commonly cited statistic about guns—that 2.5 million people use them each year to defend themselves or their property — is based on faulty analysis from a 1990s study. A more reliable source of information, the National Crime Victimization Survey, pegs the number of people who use guns in this manner at roughly 100,000, according to Science Vs podcast host Wendy Zukerman. Hemenway added that there is no good evidence that using a gun in self-defense reduces the likelihood of injury. There is some evidence that having a gun may reduce property loss, “but the evidence is equally compelling that having another weapon, such as mace or a baseball bat, will also reduce the likelihood of property loss,” he said

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Nagini's Neville said:

well, yeah, I know this Slogan is ugh ... old 

I would say I'm surprised they kept it, but yeah... I'm not. They kept a lot of things.

But tbh I thought it was the same in Austria?

They changed it to "Sicherheit und Hilfe" at some point afaik.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

The scarier thing IMO is that if guns are outlawed no law abiding citizen will be armed but all of the criminals still will be. They aren't getting their guns legally to begin with so why would they stop because further laws were put in place ya know? 

This is true of any law. If the fact that criminals will commit crimes serves to undermine the value of the law, we’d have no laws. The advantages to being able to actually take guns away from/punish anyone using them greatly outweighs the value of being able to Die Hard your way out of an encounter with an armed criminal. Barring Wild West scenarios where we’re all walking around strapped and ready to rumble...a myth, btw, and even the in the Wild West they often outlawed guns in town because it was self-evidently the problem...criminals undertaking violent crime are always going to have an advantage over you, and your carrying a gun really only makes you more likely to die. Bank guards are killed far more often than customers during bank robberies, for example. 

Edited by James Arryn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

If I don't have them & do need them to defend myself then I'm in a world of trouble.

If you do have them and need them to defend yourself then you're most likely still in a world of trouble...

5 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Maybe. The thing is though a ban on guns is never, ever going to pass through in the US. There are too many armed citizens & government officials that are not willing to give that up. 

If they break the law, arrest them. The US has no problem arresting vast numbers of drug users who aren't willing to give those up!

5 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

People speak of "gun control" as if you can just go out & get a gun from anywhere, at any time, & run around willy nilly shooting on the streets with it. There are gun control measures in place. There is a lengthy process to buy a gun in America legally.

There might be a lengthy process to buy a new gun, but you've just said you support private sales that bypass all that. Though if there were no sales of new guns, the supply to the second hand market would shrink drastically.

5 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Also this is only the case in some states. (Roughly half) The other half have rules in place requiring background checks between private citizens & even the ones that don't require a background check there are other rules in place. For instance in the state I live in you are not required to perform a background check on a person you are selling a gun to but you also may not knowingly transfer firearms to anyone who is prohibited by federal law from owning them

Travelling to the next state over is hardly a major imposition on criminals who want guns; state-level restrictions are basically worthless. And it's easy enough for sellers to avoid provably knowing things about their customers!

5 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Sure, so are gun shops. What is your point? 

I would assume gun shops are not a good place to carry out private sales, since the shop owner is likely to take a dim view of competitors operating on their premises!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Right but people are already punished if their child gets their gun & hurts/kills someone. I think suicide is a by case basis & when we are talking about adults the water gets murky because the gun could be up in a safe place & said adult could still get access to it, but where a child is involved people are absolutely prosecuted. 

First I want to say I don't think you're racist. But I do you're taking too much comfort in certain things and have bought into a lot of the propaganda in concern with American-exceptionalinalism.  I understand you recognize some it’s faults. But still. To your statement actually only 28 states actually have laws that punish adults for leaving their firearms out in place where they could get it and kill themselves or others.

Also, no, if you're not responsible enough to properly secure or at least make an adequate attempt to secure a tool meant for killing, I see no reason for why you not to be prosecuted when your own carelessness cost human life. 

 

13 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

n my hypothetical situation some of the military would potentially side with the government but most of them would not. There would still be armed citizens fighting for the government, hired arms, security teams, etc. 

 

The vast majority probably will do what soldiers do and follow orders. It's not as if American soldiers are somehow intrinsically nobler than any other military organization on earth or history. They're not. They’ve proven they're not time and time again when they a lot of them as a group given orders to do horrific and for matter illegal things. Please look up some of the massacres. That happened in Vietnam. Look up the My Lai Massacre in particular. Over a hundred soldiers went along with orders to brutally executes hundreds of unarmed civilian; many of them children. It's very likely there won't be much in the way of defections if the government decided to do away with any pretense of respecting the Democratic process.  US Military are just  human beings like you or me and most of them have been conditioned to follow orders. Bureaucrats and janitors with guns holding up most dictatorships worldwide. It’s largely thanks to the compliance from the military. Mercenary groups, and the government’s supporters do often play an important role, sure, but military support is still crucial. 

It’d be nice if the vast majority of military service members we're especially more heroic than the soldiers found in other countries. That their moral courage would lead a significant portion or even a substantial majority, to break away based in defiance to the direct superiors they've been trained to obey.  That they're special. They're not.

I believe the second most Americans realize this, stop venerating them as heroes just for being in the US Military the more we’ll be able to defend ourselves. 

18 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I gotcha. But I disagree. I think whether or not anyone ever in history has successfully fought back against tyranny, I still want that option. I still want that chance. 

Which is voting, boycott, and other modes of protests, PR campaigning should be utilized. I think you would agree those things have been more crucial to garnering many of the social rights in past centuries in America than an armed resistance against the government.

Honestly, if most of the people most concerned/paranoid about keeping their guns, put a fraction of that concern towards fighting against any government attempts to cut individuals ability to appeal, towards making the type of bullying tactics of the police illegal, etc.,  this nation’s people would probably be much more protected.

18 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I'm saying if I meet someone, say, at a gun shop & they want to purchase my gun. I do not have access to the equipment I need to perform a background check on them.

Yes, you do. It's not rocket science. It just takes time.

18 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I could gather all of their information, take it home, perform the check, wait the weeks until it comes back & then decide if I want to sell the gun to them but this isn't really ideal.

It's not overly convenient. I agree. Speed bumps around my neighborhood aren't really ideal for me too. But they are necessary to help avoid someone getting hurt or being killing. 

If a person doesn't want to be bothered to check to see if a potential buyer is allowed to own a firearm then they probably should not sell it. Honestly, even if they weren't legally required to do it(which they should be), if they still they aren't proving themselves to be a ”responsible” gun owner and probably should have never gotten it in the first place.

18 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Then if that gun is ever involved in something illegal & the buyer did not register the gun to their self the gun will come back to registered to the seller & the police will contact them. The seller will show their proof that they sold said gun on this date to this person. 

With no consequence for selling a gun to a guy whbig a task for any responsible gun owner to do of weeks of googling and researching is not too big a task for any responsible gun owner to do.

18 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

At any rate I don't think it's necessarily a bad idea to have private sellers background check potential buyers, I just think it would be a lot of time & effort put into something that won't be that effective.

It probably will. Most private individuals probably don't want to go to prison for the rest of their life if the buyer they sold to was a convicted violent felon.

18 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I don't want people that mean to do harm to have guns either. I don't want innocent people murdered, schools shot up, etc. I think we can all agree on that. I also don't want to see regulations put in place that hinder law abiding citizens defending themselves. 

If you were a law-abiding citizen assuming you don't have serious history of mental illness, this really wouldn't be a hurdle to get through. Anymore the speed bumps in your neighborhood are. 

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

First I want to say I don't think you're racist.

Well, Thanks. Since I haven't said or done anything remotely racist thought I don't know why anyone would think that. 

5 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

But I do you're taking too much comfort in certain things and have bought into a lot of the propaganda in concern with American-exceptionalism.

Quite the opposite. I think America is a mess. I've said repeatedly that the way the gun bans or laws have been implemented in other countries that have had success need to be implemented in America. I think the reason they are not is because our government has no urge to decrease the gun violence. 

5 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I understand you recognize some it’s faults. But still. To your statement actually only 28 states actually have laws that punish adults for leaving their firearms out in place where they could get it and kill themselves or others.

I was referring to my state, which does. But sure they all should. 

5 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Also, no, if you're not responsible enough to properly secure or at least make an adequate attempt to secure a tool meant for killing, I see no reason for why you not to be prosecuted when your own carelessness cost human life. 

I don't think any sane person would disagree with this & I certainly haven't. I said it gets murky where adults are concerned. For instance if your wife knows the combination to your safe & gets a gun out & kills herself should you be prosecuted for that? I don't think so. The gun owner wasn't being careless, he had his gun locked in a safe.

5 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

The vast majority probably will do what soldiers do and follow orders. It's not as if American soldiers are somehow intrinsically nobler than any other military organization on earth or history.

No, but they are bred to follow orders & they swear to protect the constitution. I don't think American soldiers are somehow intrinsically nobler than other military organizations, I just have faith that some of them (hopefully most of them) will uphold the oaths they swore. 

5 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

They're not. They’ve proven they're not time and time again when they a lot of them as a group given orders to do horrific and for matter illegal things. Please look up some of the massacres. That happened in Vietnam. Look up the My Lai Massacre in particular. Over a hundred soldiers went along with orders to brutally executes hundreds of unarmed civilian; many of them children. It's very likely there won't be much in the way of defections if the government decided to do away with any pretense of respecting the Democratic process. 

I'm aware & it's horrific. This was not against the American people though. I'm not saying this makes it any better - it doesn't. It was horrific against any living being. What I'm saying is though, that American soldiers have American families living in America. If they agreed to do that here they would essentially be agreeing to do it to their own families & allowing it done to their own families. While some people are just bad & would agree to it any which way I would like to think the vast majority of them would not. 

5 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

US Military are just  human beings like you or me and most of them have been conditioned to follow orders. Bureaucrats and janitors with guns holding up most dictatorships worldwide. It’s largely thanks to the compliance from the military. Mercenary groups, and the government’s supporters do often play an important role, sure, but military support is still crucial. 

Absolutely so it naturally follows that some human beings are going to do the right thing right? If things were to come down to this I choose to believe that we would have a fighting chance. I don't understand what people find so derogatory about that honestly. 

5 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

It’d be nice if the vast majority of military service members we're especially more heroic than the soldiers found in other countries. That their moral courage would lead a significant portion or even a substantial majority, to break away based in defiance to the direct superiors they've been trained to obey.  That they're special. They're not.

I don't think this is necessary though. Their superiors are people too, with families that would be subjected to this treatment as well. I haven't argued once that they are "special" or more honorable than military's of other nations. For the entire military to follow orders that intentionally harm the american people we would need their families & loved ones to first be protected. Maybe then they would agree to disintegrate the rest of us but still all of them wouldn't. Some people do make the right choice. 

5 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I believe the second most Americans realize this, stop venerating them as heroes just for being in the US Military the more we’ll be able to defend ourselves. 

Where have I done this? "venerated them as heroes"? 

5 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Which is voting, boycott, and other modes of protests, PR campaigning should be utilized. I think you would agree those things have been more crucial to garnering many of the social rights in past centuries in America than an armed resistance against the government.

I agree these things help & have helped in the past. I've also never suggested an armed resistance against the government is a situation I want to play out or that I think it would have a great end. The stance that I took that started the whole discussion about an armed resistance against the government was that I would like to see law abiding citizens keep their guns. I stated that the American government are bullies who try to bully the rest of the world & to imagine what they would do to the citizens if there was no resistance. - Not my only reason for wanting to have a firearm, not even my # 1 reason, but a reason. I was countered with if the government wanted to do something to us they would & our guns wouldn't offer any resistance. I replied that even if they wouldn't that is not an argument for me to not try & that I thought we would have a fighting chance. From there I have been called racist, lazy, Trump-supporter (which if any one is curious I'm not) & other ad hominem fallacies & then everyone acts like I'm nuts for not listening to what they are saying. 

Why would I listen to a group of people who have to resort to insults & bullying to get their point across? 

I'm not saying you, you haven't done this, which is why I am replying to you. 

My point is you are arguing from a position that I think American citizens need to load up their guns & ammo, head to the white house, & Scream 'Merica while unloading on them - I would not nor have I ever suggested this. 

5 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Honestly, if most of the people most concerned/paranoid about keeping their guns, put a fraction of that concern towards fighting against any government attempts to cut individuals ability to appeal, towards making the type of bullying tactics of the police illegal, etc.,  this nation’s people would probably be much more protected.

I agree, I said myself that maybe we have a government or a police issue more than a gun issue. The issue arises in that when we see police battering, gassing, shooting, unarmed protesters people get scared & want to be able to defend themselves from this type of attack. I don't think that's so outrageous. 

Our voting process is rigged, people are scared to protest, we are in a bad place & while I agree there is a gun violence issue in America I do not agree that taking guns - at this time - would be productive. After the police are under control, after our voting process is fixed, then we can look at removing guns from the country. 

Also, I don't think it's fair to say people who are concerned about keeping their guns are paranoid. Undoubtedly some are but not all. 

6 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Yes, you do. It's not rocket science. It just takes time.

I never said or implied it was rocket science. I said I wouldn't have the equipment necessary to perform the background check on the spot. 

6 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

t's not overly convenient. I agree. Speed bumps around my neighborhood aren't really ideal for me too. But they are necessary to help avoid someone getting hurt or being killing. 

Yes, it's not convenient. That is my point. I wasn't suggesting they shouldn't be done in private sales only that this is a potential reason why it isn't illegal not to. 

6 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

If a person doesn't want to be bothered to check to see if a potential buyer is allowed to own a firearm then they probably should not sell it. Honestly, even if they weren't legally required to do it(which they should be), if they still they aren't proving themselves to be a ”responsible” gun owner and probably should have never gotten it in the first place.

Well that's your opinion. I don't necessarily disagree but apparently the law does. 

6 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

With no consequence for selling a gun to a guy whbig a task for any responsible gun owner to do of weeks of googling and researching is not too big a task for any responsible gun owner to do.

Again, I didn't say it was too big of a task but no there shouldn't be any consequence by law for a person who is following the law. If the law says you don't have to do a background check during a private sale then there cannot be a consequence by law for not doing the background check. 

6 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

It probably will. Most private individuals probably don't want to go to prison for the rest of their life if the buyer they sold to was a convicted violent felon.

I agree I just don't think this is where most of the guns going into criminals hands are coming from. Certainly some are. 

6 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

If you were a law-abiding citizen assuming you don't have serious history of mental illness, this really wouldn't be a hurdle to get through. Anymore the speed bumps in your neighborhood are. 

Well, if there were a nationwide ban on guns how would it not be a hurdle to get through? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

No, but they are bred to follow orders & they swear to protect the constitution. I don't think American soldiers are somehow intrinsically nobler than other military organizations, I just have faith that some of them (hopefully most of them) will uphold the oaths they swore. 

To the bolded so?  Most government officials or politicians, who would be in positions of Power swear to protect the Constitution as well. There has been many countries with constitutions that have turned dictatorial with largely the aid of the country’s military. I'm guessing you realize most of them also members of their military to serve the Constitution as well. 

And, sure there may be some who would find the moral muster to object public and even defect.

The vast majority(like I'm talking 99.999%) most likely wouldn't and do what good soldiers do and follow orders.

You might want to look up the Milgram experiment, when researchers tested whether or not the average person would disobey an order if it came from an authority figure if the order involved inflicting great harm on a another human being. It turns out the typical is agreeable to authority to the point where they’d torture and possibly kill someone because a loud commanding voice told them to keep hurting someone. Like 70% of people went along with the voice said. When researchers placed the subject in a group setting where the group said to continue with the torture, 90% went along with the view said. And these were just average people. People in the military have proven exceptionally good at following orders. By all reason they should be expected to be more compliant in face of horrific orders if they gave orders by a figure, they’ve been trained to obey and grown accustomed to obeying.

And, look up at how many illegal military actions the executive branch has committed within the last century alone and see how many defections came about. It's virtually nonexistent barring some incredibly rare incidents. 

23 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Well, if there were a nationwide ban on guns how would it not be a hurdle to get through? 

Again I literally said this shouldn't be done. 

23 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Again, I didn't say it was too big of a task but no there shouldn't be any consequence by law for a person who is following the law. If the law says you don't have to do a background check during a private sale then there cannot be a consequence by law for not doing the background check. 

Which is why we need to upgrade the law  to make doing a background check a requirement for anyone wishing to sell a firearm to someone else. 

23 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Well that's your opinion. I don't necessarily disagree but apparently the law does. 

Yes. And that's wrong. 

23 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Yes, it's not convenient. That is my point. I wasn't suggesting they shouldn't be done in private sales only that this is a potential reason why it isn't illegal not to. 

The reason why it's not illegal is almost entirely due to Republican stonewalling any attempt at any gun-control measure because of gun manufacturers and the NRA would cease giving them financial and political support. 

23 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I never said or implied it was rocket science. I said I wouldn't have the equipment necessary to perform the background check on the spot. 

And? Like, even if we concede that you don't have a smartphone to at least google the person you want to sell a weapon that could quickly kill dozens, is you being able to fill your pockets with a little more cash the quickest possible way the pressing issue here? I honestly don't think so.

I think it's making sure the person selling a weapon is doing everything he or she could reasonably expect to do as a responsible gun owner to verify if a potential buyer should be allowed to own a gun.

It’s not the most convenient for stores to have to check a person’s ID to check to see if they're of age to drink or smoke.

We still expect them to do so.

23 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I agree these things help & have helped in the past. I've also never suggested an armed resistance against the government is a situation I want to play out or that I think it would have a great end. The stance that I took that started the whole discussion about an armed resistance against the government was that I would like to see law abiding citizens keep their guns. I stated that the American government are bullies who try to bully the rest of the world & to imagine what they would do to the citizens if there was no resistance. - Not my only reason for wanting to have a firearm, not even my # 1 reason, but a reason. 

There is effectively no armed resistance against actual government oppression.  

 

23 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Where have I done this? "venerated them as heroes"? 

Meh, you  said you thought the majority of them would defect and join the side of whatever resistance supposedly fighting against The government tyranny. That is what I’d call heroic.

23 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I'm aware & it's horrific. This was not against the American people though. I'm not saying this makes it any better - it doesn't. It was horrific against any living being. What I'm saying is though, that American soldiers have American families living in America. If they agreed to do that here they would essentially be agreeing to do it to their own families & allowing it done to their own families. While some people are just bad & would agree to it any which way I would like to think the vast majority of them would not. 

And Russian soldiers have families living in Russia, Turkish soldiers have families living in Turkey, and North Korean Soldiers have families living in Korea. It's not just as simple as ”some people are just bad” many of these soldiers are no less or more noble than the ordinary citizen. They don't gleefully cackle and expunge on how they're supporting an authoritarian regime because of all the misery it causes. They don't see themselves endangering their family--tyrants never say they're tyrannical they always frame they always tell their soldiers whatever they’re doing is necessary to maintain the or acquire peace, that the soldiers loved ones so enjoy.  

23 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I don't think this is necessary though. Their superiors are people too, with families that would be subjected to this treatment as well.

What you don't think that's essentially right of every military on earth?

Do you think when Putin took control of Russia, or when Erogan took control of Turkey, or really whenever any autocratic person or group, took over any minimally Democratic country, that the soldiers who made up the military where some single bachelors with no family? 

The majority of soldiers in China are no less noble than the US’ they are no less human than the US’ most have loved ones Who they cherish. And most would freely say they never considered fighting against the government even if there was no consequence for saying they have. 

23 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

My point is you are arguing from a position that I think American citizens need to load up their guns & ammo, head to the white house, & Scream 'Merica while unloading on them - I would not nor have I ever suggested this. 

No, I just think you've bought into some America’s propaganda about it’s guns and it's military. 

23 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I agree, I said myself that maybe we have a government or a police issue more than a gun issue. The issue arises in that when we see police battering, gassing, shooting, unarmed protesters people get scared & want to be able to defend themselves from this type of attack. I don't think that's so outrageous. 

agreed, which is why most groups most critical of the police, advocate for increased constraints, surveillance, and oversight of the police. 

23 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Our voting process is rigged,

A simplistic and counterproductive position.

23 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

we are in a bad place & while I agree there is a gun violence issue in America I do not agree that taking guns - at this time - would be productive.

I didn't say I get rid of all guns, but given America’s state, the best defense to preserve America’s democracy would be through be voting because they do matter.  Not as much as what would be ideal, but still.

23 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Also, I don't think it's fair to say people who are concerned about keeping their guns are paranoid. Undoubtedly some are but not all. 

On 11/19/2019 at 12:52 AM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I made a point of Saying most concerned. The majority of those most concerned about keeping their guns, freely giveaway any protection for ordinary citizens. 

 

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, how you guys planning to disarm people if some "anti-gun" law will appear? you think what millions of armed people will just freely give their weapons? 
How this all can work actually?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Roterdamlover said:

By the way, how you guys planning to disarm people if some "anti-gun" law will appear? you think what millions of armed people will just freely give their weapons?

I think most of them would rather give up their weapons than be arrested for refusing to give them up (and then have them confiscated anyway). The small minority willing to actually open fire on police over the issue would end up either in prison for attempted and/or actual murder, or dead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Roterdamlover said:

By the way, how you guys planning to disarm people if some "anti-gun" law will appear? you think what millions of armed people will just freely give their weapons? 
How this all can work actually?

You dont need them to give up their guns. Once the ammo runs out they are useless. Loads of criminals in the uk have access to firearms. They struggle to get anything to put in them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh look, another argument that only works if you pretend that every country that isn't the USA doesn't exist. What fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/18/2019 at 12:23 PM, Liffguard said:

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating doing nothing. Something about guns in America needs to change. But I'm not convinced that the criminal justice system is the best way to effect this change.

IMO we should work on institutionalizing the mentally ill.  If that's still ok to say.

On 11/18/2019 at 3:43 PM, DanteGabriel said:

Oh good, an invocation of Chicago as an argument about gun crime. Reminds me of the real reason American gun culture is so paranoid and vicious: because this country has marinated for hundreds of years in violent racial paranoia. The belief that black people are violent and oversexed and will riot, rob you, and rape the virtuous white women if there aren't armed enforcers around to keep them down. It's a baked-in racialized fear from the days when white Americans were surrounded by and outnumbered by people they had tortured and abused for generations. American police are the direct descendants of slave-catcher patrols.

I do think that's one thing that often gets ignored by people who think the number of guns is the problem. I mean, yes, it's a problem that Americans have so many guns. But the collection and fetishization of guns is more like a symptom of the violent racist disease in American culture, a product of this country's original sin. Other countries have lots of guns, but they're not as primed for violence against their neighbors.

Yeah the second amendment was all about armed brown and black people and not at all about white guys in red coats.  <eye roll>  You must read Howard Zinn and NYT....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×