100+ dead in France

[see4]

Congratulations on being in favor of the removal of your rights at government whim.

Kind of like how the Republican President George Bush did with Homeland Security?

Or do you mean the imaginary gun grab that hasn't happened yet?

Please go make me a sandwich. Bitch.

 

[see4]

canada can pretty much adopt any policy they want or be the biggest assholes in the the world. because no other country would dare attack them.

Why? Because big bad USA will beat them up? Yea, nobody would ever attack the US. That would be silly. Pearl Harbor and 9/11 were inside jobs.

Go make my sandwich.

 

[Flaming Pie]

I love how you act so smart, but spew stupidity.
Lord of the idiots, you are.

You know not what you speak.

 

[NLXSK1]

You know not what you speak.

View attachment 3734786

He appears to be out in left field waiting to catch the soccer ball...

 

[Fogdog]

Bullshit, you are the troll and you got caught.

You own more guns than me and your other positions are irrelevant.

I will not be holding my breath for an apology but maybe you should contemplate your actions and attitudes here.

Wonder how all excited you would be if suddenly you were in a group that was not allowed weapons. You would probably be all like... Ok, the government said I cant have guns so I am gonna give them up like a good citizen. Or maybe you have not bothered to think far enough to see yourself in that situation.

Do you understand you are no different than any other group that wants those 'other' people to not have guns. It is exactly what the liberals want, only the government having control of them and that doesnt mean you.

Congratulations on being in favor of the removal of your rights at government whim.

I'd say that @GardenGnome83 is a responsible gun owner who cares about reducing gun related violence. He's probably willing to work with other gun owners to drive down those rates. Unlike you.

Nobody is talking about taking your little girly gun anyway. Just wondering, does it have pretty pink luster on the handle? But seriously, your gun is probably stored safely and probably hasn't even been used in a while. You might take it out and think about how more than half the time a gun is used, it is by the owner on himself. Just think about it and how nice that barrel will feel in your mouth. Try it, you'll like it.

 

[Fogdog]

You know not what you speak.

View attachment 3734786

I don't know anything except what I've read. I have read that on average, people are less safe when a gun is kept in the house.
Is this you showing your baby the correct way to hold a gun?

I mean, a lot of people just aren't good at thinking. Guns and dumbshits are a toxic brew.

 

[Fogdog]

He appears to be out in left field waiting to catch the soccer ball...

 

[Flaming Pie]

I don't know anything except what I've read. I have read that on average, people are less safe when a gun is kept in the house.
Is this you showing your baby the correct way to hold a gun?
View attachment 3734915
I mean, a lot of people just aren't good at thinking. Guns and dumbshits are a toxic brew.

My baby is not white.

 

[see4]

I am not a gun nut, I am a gun rights nut. I will continuously protect my rights against the encroachment of the federal government above and beyond the constitution.

No one has come to take your weapons yet because people have defended your right to keep them. Stop being part of the problem.

So let me see if I understand your position.

You are against regulation of firearms to people who don't need or deserve it.

But you are for Homeland Security, wire tapping, police state type law and order, and more recently you support a candidate who wants NOT to decrease the size of government but rather dramatically enlarge it by hiring millions of people to round up illegal immigrants and build a 50 foot wall along the entire southern border.

Yea. You're logic is totally sound.

 

[Fogdog]

My baby is not white.

I touched it up to keep the identity of the baby secure. You, on the other hand have a creepy smile.

 

[see4]

How many traffic-asshole shootings are therein the USA per annum? That should be an easy stat to find.

Compare with the number of times possessing a gun has stopped a violent crime. There is no way to get those data because we don't tally "the near misses".

I would argue both are equally inaccurate datasets. There is likely an equal or greater number of near miss road rage gun wavers as there are heroic crime stopper near misses.

But what we do know is that there are more gun violent crimes than there are heroic acts of crime stoppers using guns.

 

[see4]

More win, Mr. Name-caller. Fwiw my name is neither Jesus nor turd.

You are plainly a gun ownership hater. You equated gun ownership with cowardice and being on a rifle team with microphallus and bro truck ownership. Your lie is exposed.

It is your breed of extremist and gangster who is the most scary of all ... the sort who co-opts the system and consumes it from within, like a Sphex larva. . Add a nature impervious to reason to the mix, and ~sigh~ now I remember why I left this subforum. It's dogma Fight Club. You have your religion; I have mine. I like mine better as it isn't a proselytizing faith.

Never mind his name calling, what about, "I just believe we need to keep guns out of the hands of extremists and gangsters. To start.", don't you like?

 

[NLXSK1]

I'd say that @GardenGnome83 is a responsible gun owner who cares about reducing gun related violence. He's probably willing to work with other gun owners to drive down those rates. Unlike you.

Nobody is talking about taking your little girly gun anyway. Just wondering, does it have pretty pink luster on the handle? But seriously, your gun is probably stored safely and probably hasn't even been used in a while. You might take it out and think about how more than half the time a gun is used, it is by the owner on himself. Just think about it and how nice that barrel will feel in your mouth. Try it, you'll like it.

How exactly do you 'work' with other gun owners? What is this psychobabble?

GardenGnome was wrong in every assumption he made about me.

Let me get this straight, if I have a big gun I am a pussy but if I have a beretta it is a girly gun? What is wrong with you? In the state of AZ you have to be in fear of your life to fire a weapon at someone. I cant see that happening anywhere other than my home and a rifle is not very manuverable in close quarters.

You dont need a big gun if you can hit the target.

 

[cannabineer]

Never mind his name calling, what about, "I just believe we need to keep guns out of the hands of extremists and gangsters. To start.", don't you like?

It depends on who gets to define what constitutes an extremist or a gangster. It is one of those politically fraught but indistinct terms, like terrorist.

I mean, we have a Supreme Court justice seriously proposing that the Second Amendment refers not to citizens but the State. I have trust issues surrounding such matters of definition. That includes words like "need" and "deserve". Who will be given the massive power to decide who needs andor deserves to own and operate a gun? Quis custodiebit custodes?

 

[abandonconflict]

I was on a rifle team once, briefly.

My enormous hydraulic attribute interfered too much when firing from the prone position.

I will say the idea that gun ownership correlates with cowardice is not only false but fundamentally dishonest. I detect a social engineer wearing the flayed pelt of a social justice warrior. It is that sort that seeks to insinuate that guns are somehow intrinsically uncivilized.

Fact is, guns in society are a profoundly civilizing influence. Social butthurt doesn't change the fact, but it is surprisingly effective at masking it. You are dangerous to a free society, gnome saying?

This goes beyond the notion that guns are simply tools (people kill people argument) into a specifically "guns prevent people from killing people" sort of argument. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what I get from your assertion that they are profoundly civilizing. That's ridiculous. It's also quantifiable. For this argument to be sensible it would have to be shown in numbers and statistics to be true or more true than the opposite. The waters are easily muddied by some guns having different purposes and some demographics having greater access to them.

I posit that civilization is civilized and opportunities for socioeconomic upward mobility and greater equality have a profoundly civilizing influence. To take a society profoundly lacking in those qualities, and then to add guns, does not make such a society more civilized, it makes it less so. To add guns to a society with those qualities in abundance may make no difference at all.

 

[cannabineer]

This goes beyond the notion that guns are simply tools (people kill people argument) into a specifically "guns prevent people from killing people" sort of argument. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what I get from your assertion that they are profoundly civilizing. That's ridiculous. It's also quantifiable.

I have never found it to be quantifiable. The rub is that there is no metric at all for events prevented.

For this argument to be sensible it would have to be shown in numbers and statistics to be true or more true than the opposite. The waters are easily muddied by some guns having different purposes.

I posit that civilization is civilized and opportunities for socioeconomic upward mobility and greater equality have a profoundly civilizing influence. To take a civilization profoundly lacking in those qualities, and then to add guns, does not make such a civilization more civilized, it makes it less so. To add guns to a civilization with those qualities in abundance may make no difference at all.

Whose numbers? Remember, Sam Clemens observed quite astutely that there are lies, damned lies and statistics.

I do maintain that general access to guns, combined with the rule of law (thus I distance myself from, say, Angola) is civilizing. Violence is way down in shall-issue (the CCW license) states ... if you accept the statistics I saw. I don't expect you to, just as you would expect me to check your numbers.

I reject your stipulation. The human animal, both individually and in packs, is an apex predator with a massive capacity for malice. I do not behold the person next to me in line at the checkout and experience an inclination to trust him or her. Look what is happening in this nation. the haves are systematically strip-mining the rest of us. How does that bespeak a trustworthy civilization? I'll hang onto my options, including the gun.

 

[see4]

It depends on who gets to define what constitutes an extremist or a gangster. It is one of those politically fraught but indistinct terms, like terrorist.

I mean, we have a Supreme Court justice seriously proposing that the Second Amendment refers not to citizens but the State. I have trust issues surrounding such matters of definition. That includes words like "need" and "deserve". Who will be given the massive power to decide who needs andor deserves to own and operate a gun? Quis custodiebit custodes?

Maybe you should ask Gnome for his/her definition of "extremist or a gangster".

My personal opinion of the matter is that guns should be legal for people to own just as long as they are not former violent criminals, have psychotic issues, not US citizens or on a no fly list. I also think that the 2nd Amendment was not meant for automatic rifles capable of leveling up to 100 people in less than 5 seconds. ( 100 round drum magazines are fun ) -- Just as I think the Wright Brothers are likely rolling in their graves knowing that their invention is used to cause massive acts of terror, rather not for its intended purpose.

Your line of questioning advances the notion that you think that ALL people should have the right to a deadly firearm. As if anarchy were the answer. You're sounding a bit like Rob, if my interpretation of your premise is accurate.

 

[abandonconflict]

I reject your stipulation. The human animal, both individually and in packs, is an apex predator with a massive capacity for malice. I do not behold the person next to me in line at the checkout and experience an inclination to trust him or her. Look what is happening in this nation. the haves are systematically strip-mining the rest of us. How does that bespeak a trustworthy civilization? I'll hang onto my options, including the gun.

I agree with your assertions to this point, particularly a lack of metric for events prevented. However, I see your analysis of human nature as deeply flawed. The simple version is that it is ridiculous to assert that guns make us more civilized. Guns just make you feel safer in an uncivilized society, nothing more.

Firstly, it is the result of your environment. You apparently assume that because you have seen inequality, that only inequality is possible and do not address, let's say Switzerland. Here is a society that has avoided wars for centuries and where the citizens on the lowest strata are not so far below those at the top. Gun ownership is very high. It occurs to me we need to make sure we agree on the definition of "civilized" for the sake of this exchange at the very least. However, I think that what we both mean would include Switzerland as being very high in a list of most civilized nations. Some would argue this is due to gun ownership, but as can be shown, there is also very high equality and equal opportunities for people to advance.

Also, you assert that man is an apex predator with a massive capacity for malice, as if this is intrinsic and not a product of environment. You then point to the very inequality I allude to, taking my own premise into your argument. So we agree there is a correlation between inequality and and what we both seem to regard as a lack of "civilization". However, I posit that you have causation backwards. It is the inequality causing the environment which guides the behavior. As surely as there are some with an innate tendency for malice, it is in the nature of every human and demonstrable in most other species the capacity for compassion. The descent into the madness of our uncivilization, in its abundant malice, has been a gradual one.

At the core, what I suggest is that "survival of the fittest" is an inapt description of natural selection. Mutual aid is a factor of evolution and we fare better as a species, in cooperation. Furthermore, whatever in our nature that makes us apex predators is not applicable to our treatment to each other, at least not evolutionarily, but only to our ecological niche. In conclusion, I do not suggest any change or even focus on gun laws, keep your guns, get more guns, sell guns and make guns, idgaf. The debate about civilization is not one that guns can address. Killing does not come naturally to all or even most. Violence does not come naturally to all or even most. The traumatized are the violent. Killing and violence are aberrations, but we have gradually slipped into a society wherein they are increasingly commonplace. I know this from experience and believe it, this is the core of my argument.

Guns don't make a society more civilized, equality does, cooperation does. Guns also do not impede equality or cooperation. These are two separate arguments for two separate debates.

 

[see4]

I have never found it to be quantifiable. The rub is that there is no metric at all for events prevented.
Whose numbers? Remember, Sam Clemens observed quite astutely that there are lies, damned lies and statistics.

I do maintain that general access to guns, combined with the rule of law (thus I distance myself from, say, Angola) is civilizing. Violence is way down in shall-issue (the CCW license) states ... if you accept the statistics I saw. I don't expect you to, just as you would expect me to check your numbers.

I reject your stipulation. The human animal, both individually and in packs, is an apex predator with a massive capacity for malice. I do not behold the person next to me in line at the checkout and experience an inclination to trust him or her. Look what is happening in this nation. the haves are systematically strip-mining the rest of us. How does that bespeak a trustworthy civilization? I'll hang onto my options, including the gun.

That's a curious position to take when in the same breathe you profess the unjustness of a governing body over who shall and shall not be permitted to own firearms.

 

[see4]

Guns don't make a society more civilized, equality does, cooperation does. Guns also do not impede equality or cooperation. These are two separate arguments for two separate debates.

YUP.