Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Total ban

3 (5%)

Strict laws, harsh penalties, strict regulation and record-keeping with check-ups every so often

23 (38.3%)

Something in between

9 (15%)

As it stands now

6 (10%)

Total freedom

17 (28.3%)

Abstain

2 (3.3%)

Total Members Voted: 59

[Harry Baldman]

Probably the reason people don't want to regulate guns so much is that, unlike cars which kill you first and foremost and anybody else you hit second, and neither of those terribly conveniently and mostly by accident, a gun lets you kill anyone you like as well as yourself with extreme convenience (although with associated costs), and usually not even by accident (preschoolers with pistols notwithstanding).

And yeah, public safety would demand that you put increasingly stringent limits on such an ability, but how can you expect anybody (especially someone feeling disenfranchised) to want to give up the power to kill pretty much anyone within reach? Especially if they're convinced that this ability to kill anyone within reach will be taken away exclusively from people they believe should be trusted with the task of killing anything they want within reach (since they surely will kill responsibly and reasonably if you give them the benefit of the doubt, and might even be able to kill someone who really needed to be killed once in a blue moon).

[mainiac]

No harry, I will not allow your character to walk around a peaceful space station in full body armor carrying a mag rifle.

[SirQuiamus]

how can you expect anybody (especially someone feeling disenfranchised) to want to give up the power to kill pretty much anyone within reach? Especially if they're convinced that this ability to kill anyone within reach will be taken away exclusively from people they believe should be trusted with the task of killing anything they want within reach (since they surely will kill responsibly and reasonably if you give them the benefit of the doubt, and might even be able to kill someone who really needed to be killed once in a blue moon).

Having the potential ability to conveniently kill anyone within reach is of zero or negative utility in a society that criminalizes murder. It's purely cosmetic---a masturbatory fantasy that makes you think that other people respect you more than they actually do. We should first make killing legal for everyone in all instances, and then people would be justified in complaining that their ability to kill has been unjustly taken away. ;^)

[Erkki]

Mainiac, can you please refrain from posting if you have nothing to contribute.

Because I'm a lazy debater and kinda tired of flogging dead horses, I'm just going to link to an edgy blog and enjoy a momentary rush of intellectual superiority.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

I had never seen this ad, because the ad was not for me. The ad targets men who need a gun to feel like a real man, the gun validates their masculinity-- or so the ordinary, pseudo-feminist deconstruction would go. Except that's not what the ad says. It says, quite clearly, that the highest validator of masculinity isn't the gun, it is the card. 

You've been trained to look at these things in terms of gender, forget it, the pathology of the generation is narcissism, the ad knows about, and works only on, a society eyeballs deep in narcissism, that requires its identity broadcast by branded objects but validated by other people. Because what this ad says, explicitly, is that owning the gun doesn't make you a man; when you own the gun, some other omnipotent entity will declare you a man. 

I'm not saying that gun owners need to show their guns off, I'm saying this ad assumes that. There was a time where merely possessing the fetishized object was enough to self-identify ("I'm awesome, I'm having sex with a blonde"; "just having my 9mm inside my jacket makes me feel bad ass"), but this is no longer sufficient, it is no longer powerful enough to penetrate your thick skull, you have to be able to show it to someone else, to watch their eyes light up in recognition for you to know you have convinced them of who you are. 

Is it cosmetic? Note the logic has evolved from "you'll feel better about yourself" to "other people will see you as more competent."

tl;dr: As far as advertising is concerned (and advertising is all there is to American culture), guns are for men what make-up is for women. If you are a "woman," the fantasy is that wearing make-up makes other "women" acknowledge you as a legitimate peer and competitor, thereby validating your identity as a Woman. If you are a "man," the fantasy is that carrying a gun makes other "men" (i.e. The Big Gubmint Daddy, in particular) acknowledge you as a legitimate peer and competitor, thereby validating your identity as a Man.

It's pretty funny, really. Although western countries have already banned all lethal toxins in cosmetics marketed to women, the same rules just don't seem to apply to the lethal male cosmetics called "guns."

Its not about makeup, but status symbols(for some people any way). Status symbols similar to modern day clothing, jewelry, cigarette or joint, vehicles, even musical taste, favorite locations to spend time at, political views expressed etc.

Thousands of years ago, here you see his highness the Pharaoh and his dogs of war, in his shiny chariot, wielding bow and arrow, wearing makeup, driving away ermm dark skinned enemies. In this regard not much has changed since.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

I wouldn't say they're just for men though. Firearms aren't just cosmetics, because as tools they also have important abilities. I believe firearms are treated much less as status symbols or decoration than typical weapons were, say, just 150 years ago, but to some extent they still are such. Probably the most so in the US' open and concealed carry states.

Having the potential ability to conveniently kill anyone within reach is of zero or negative utility in a society that criminalizes murder. It's purely cosmetic---a masturbatory fantasy that makes you think that other people respect you more than they actually do. We should first make killing legal for everyone in all instances, and then people would be justified in complaining that their ability to kill has been unjustly taken away. ;^)

I'd say having the potential to take life can be very useful even if its not intended to be used.

That belief is rather naive too, I for one cannot imagine I'm respected any more than what I am as outside the hobby circles(where I'm known as the fellow who cant hit a thing usually) as very few know I'm armed. Owning firearms stopped being a good thing in just about everyones eyes long ago. Now you just get weird looks and grins.

[mainiac]

Mainiac, can you please refrain from posting if you have nothing to contribute.

If people with nothing to contribute weren't posting in this thread there wouldn't be a thread. 

[Harry Baldman]

No harry, I will not allow your character to walk around a peaceful space station in full body armor carrying a mag rifle.

But what if there's a shooting in the mall, man. Somebody with a smuggled firearm could just get in there and get all the precious loot and xp from right under my nose. Or worse, somebody might shoot me with a smuggled firearm for loot and xp! There could even be a TPK! That's just not good society design.

Having the potential ability to conveniently kill anyone within reach is of zero or negative utility in a society that criminalizes murder. It's purely cosmetic---a masturbatory fantasy that makes you think that other people respect you more than they actually do. We should first make killing legal for everyone in all instances, and then people would be justified in complaining that their ability to kill has been unjustly taken away. ;^)

Well of course no reasonable True American would ever murder anyone, good sir. They'd use their god-given firearms to enact righteous civil war against the oppressive system's black-shirted, facemask-wearing enforcers when Secondary Antichrist Hillary Clinton falsely claims the Oval Throne. Or alternatively take the fight to Mexico if the succession crisis ends with the ascension of the true king.

And in case you're not a True American: well of course you wouldn't murder anyone, you go to prison for that and that's enough deterrence for you, yessir, since you're a citizen who rightly believes they should be allowed the ability to kill anyone they want within reach. But if you wanted to you could totally kill, as a conservative estimate, like ∞ people with your gun collection. And that's a number you just can't say no to. With numbers like that the GRU doesn't stand a chance.

[Shadowlord]

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday left in place gun control laws in New York and Connecticut that ban assault weapons like the one used in last week's massacre at an Orlando nightclub, rejecting a challenge brought by gun rights advocates.

The justices declined to hear an appeal of an October ruling by the New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld laws prohibiting semiautomatic weapons and large capacity magazines in the two northeastern states.

The laws in New York and Connecticut, among the strictest in the nation, were enacted after a gunman with a semiautomatic rifle killed 20 young children and six educators in 2012 at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. In total, seven states and the District of Columbia ban semi-automatic rifles.

The New York and Connecticut laws were challenged by pro-gun groups including the Coalition of Connecticut Sportsmen and the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association as well as individual gun owners. The appeals court consolidated the two cases and upheld the law.

The Connecticut challengers appealed to the Supreme Court while the New York ones did not. However, an individual gun owner, Douglas Kampfer, who had a parallel legal challenge to the New York law that also lost at the appeals court level asked the Supreme Court to hear his case.

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Will Dunham)

So I saw this in the news, and it's kind of mind-boggling that anyone would write something so very wrong, because, you know, I don't think there are actually any states that ban semi-automatic rifles, and I'm quite sure that New York doesn't ban semi-automatic weapons in general, either.

[Sheb]

Mainiac, can you please refrain from posting if you have nothing to contribute.

If people with nothing to contribute weren't posting in this thread there wouldn't be a thread. 

I must say mainiac, you've been disckish even by your standards.

[mainiac]

I must say mainiac, you've been disckish even by your standards.

It's a conversation whose cornerstone is supposed to be trivializing murder.  That is the unspoken ground rules of these debates.  The entire format sanitizes and avoids blame.  There is no knowledge here so it's ignorance being treated as wisdom.  Honestly I wish there was a way for me to be more dickish about the ridiculous farce this whole thing is.

[Shadowlord]

I must say mainiac, you've been disckish even by your standards.

It's a conversation whose cornerstone is supposed to be trivializing murder.  That is the unspoken ground rules of these debates.  The entire format sanitizes and avoids blame.  There is no knowledge here so it's ignorance being treated as wisdom.  Honestly I wish there was a way for me to be more dickish about the ridiculous farce this whole thing is.

I'm actually a little concerned that you might say something to get yourself banned. The ameripol thread needs you!

[Wolfhunter107]

I must say mainiac, you've been disckish even by your standards.

It's a conversation whose cornerstone is supposed to be trivializing murder.  That is the unspoken ground rules of these debates.  The entire format sanitizes and avoids blame.  There is no knowledge here so it's ignorance being treated as wisdom.  Honestly I wish there was a way for me to be more dickish about the ridiculous farce this whole thing is.

Since when does self defense count as murder?

[piratejoe]

No harry, I will not allow your character to walk around a peaceful space station in full body armor carrying a mag rifle.

This is not space station 13, this is the fourm, please activate byond now buhby.

Well your most recent batch of "Logic" was more in line of a 12 year old cod player getting his ass handed to him and getting angry about it.

Hey dude, I'm doing fine.  I dont need you to make my argument for me.

You kinda already fucked that like of reasoning with this.

Also with the repeated line, you are sounding like

So what?  It's a bullshit debate.  If it's not a real debate there is very little to do but repeat how bullshit it is.  Everytime there is a massacre you people come in and start play acting like citizen philosophers.  But you are publicly interlectually masturbating yourselves over slain innocent lives.  You are putting RIDICULOUS fantasies about self defense on par with real world communities being torn apart by tragedy.

It's not a real fucking debate.  Dont act like we are under any obligation to treat your fantasies like actual intellectual intercourse.  Thanks to the Supreme court you get to keep your surrogate phalluses but the Supreme Court doesn't make you right, only legally protected.  The Supreme Court doesn't entitle people to pretend like the actual terms you have laid out are anything other then a fantasy.

Want a real debate?  Talk about guns the way we talk about cars and speeding limits.  Like an adult that recognizes reality.  With cars and speeding limits we dont put our heads in the sand and pretend that cars and driving fast dont kill people.  We dont cling to bullshit comparisons.  We dont support organizations that lobby congress to prevent the government from even studying the issue.  We recognize that the fact is that some people are going to die and ask how much danger we are willing to tolerate.

But what you are doing isn't a debate.  It's a public display of edginess.

Though i do admit if you didn't post this what you said would have been clever, but alas and alack.

The main reason i want guns to be legal is because i can tell shits gona go down where i live, the usa is not going to have a fun time and im going to need something more then a multi tool or hammer to protect me. Honestly i would be surprised (and very happy) if some kind of massive riot or revolution didn't happen in the us within the next year, that is anyway if Hillery gets elected.

I must say mainiac, you've been disckish even by your standards.

It's a conversation whose cornerstone is supposed to be trivializing murder.  That is the unspoken ground rules of these debates.  The entire format sanitizes and avoids blame.  There is no knowledge here so it's ignorance being treated as wisdom.  Honestly I wish there was a way for me to be more dickish about the ridiculous farce this whole thing is.

Go back to tumblr okay, if you want to complain about "trivializing murder" then continue on about banning knives and tasers as well, yes tasers can kill people, in fact quite literally everything can be used to kill people and many of which can be used quite easily. Using a gun is no different to using any other object with the intent to hurt, its a weapon, and since when has any nation banned all weapons?

This is the world we live in, its a shitty place and you are made of very fragile materials that can brake easily, its been that way since the first human was born, accept that.

[mainiac]

I must say mainiac, you've been disckish even by your standards.

It's a conversation whose cornerstone is supposed to be trivializing murder.  That is the unspoken ground rules of these debates.  The entire format sanitizes and avoids blame.  There is no knowledge here so it's ignorance being treated as wisdom.  Honestly I wish there was a way for me to be more dickish about the ridiculous farce this whole thing is.

Since when does self defense count as murder?

It doesn't.  But it does count as the bullshit made up fantasy world that we use to sanitize this discussion.

[MonkeyHead]

I must say mainiac, you've been disckish even by your standards.

It's a conversation whose cornerstone is supposed to be trivializing murder.  That is the unspoken ground rules of these debates.  The entire format sanitizes and avoids blame.  There is no knowledge here so it's ignorance being treated as wisdom.  Honestly I wish there was a way for me to be more dickish about the ridiculous farce this whole thing is.

Since when does self defense count as murder?

Depending on context and the laws pertaining to such things in the nation state where you live, self defence becomes murder when "excessive force" is used.

YMMV, of course, dependant on how such things are defined.

[Sheb]

I must admit mainiac, every time piratejoe post, I feel better about you.