Gun Control, RE: Charleston Massacre

[Blaze The Great]

Yeah, and this is why people need guns. Without guns, they are all but powerless if the government comes after them. People shouldn't have to rely on foreign powers to solve problems in their own country, especially in an organization like the United Nations, where objections to the kind of aid that should be provided could arise from almost anyone.

[blah the Prussian]

Yeah, and this is why people need guns. Without guns, they are all but powerless if the government comes after them. People shouldn't have to rely on foreign powers to solve problems in their own country, especially in an organization like the United Nations, where objections to the kind of aid that should be provided could arise from almost anyone.

Here's the issue: guns would be wholly ineffective, especially since the people of Serbia would be opposed to any Bosnians defending themselves as well. In addition, governments toppled by revolution have seen violent civil wars often leading to anarchy and far more deaths than the regime was capable of. See the Congo, Libya, and Syria for some examples.

[Blaze The Great]

Here's the issue: guns would be wholly ineffective, especially since the people of Serbia would be opposed to any Bosnians defending themselves as well. In addition, governments toppled by revolution have seen violent civil wars often leading to anarchy and far more deaths than the regime was capable of. See the Congo, Libya, and Syria for some examples.

All true, but I'm not even necessarily talking about guns as a tool for rebellion, just as self-defense. Also, even if the Serbians didn't WANT the Bosnians to have guns, they couldn't exactly refuse them guns. After the Soviet Union fell, many of the countries that had formerly been a part of it became capitalist, so those people, as long as they could afford them, could get guns.

[dondon151]

"After the prohibition was implemented, alcohol continued to be consumed. However, how much compared to pre-Prohibition levels remains unclear. Studies examining the rates of cirrhosis deaths as a proxy for alcohol consumption estimated a decrease in consumption of 10–20%.[4][5][6] However,the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism's studies show clear epidemiological evidence that "overall cirrhosis mortality rates declined precipitously with the introduction of Prohibition," despite widespread flouting of the law.[7] One study reviewing city-level drunkenness arrests came to a similar result.[8] And, yet another study examining "mortality, mental health and crime statistics" found that alcohol consumption fell, at first, to approximately 30 percent of its pre-Prohibition level; but, over the next several years, increased to about 60–70 percent of its pre-prohibition level.[9]"

prohibition did actually lead to a decrease in alcohol consumption

research your goddamn facts, klok. laws never prevent anything completely; they just reduce the incidence of a particular behavior, which is exactly what i said.

[Chiki]

Yeah, and this is why people need guns. Without guns, they are all but powerless if the government comes after them. People shouldn't have to rely on foreign powers to solve problems in their own country, especially in an organization like the United Nations, where objections to the kind of aid that should be provided could arise from almost anyone.

You honestly have to suffer from serious paranoia if you think this is a good argument.

Edited June 22, 2015 by Chiki

[Blaze The Great]

You honestly have to suffer from serious paranoia if you think this is a good argument.

That's because it wasn't about gun control as a whole, just in response to a very specific scenario blah and I were discussing. If I was using that to argue against gun control on a broad level, I would agree with you.

[blah the Prussian]

All true, but I'm not even necessarily talking about guns as a tool for rebellion, just as self-defense. Also, even if the Serbians didn't WANT the Bosnians to have guns, they couldn't exactly refuse them guns. After the Soviet Union fell, many of the countries that had formerly been a part of it became capitalist, so those people, as long as they could afford them, could get guns.

If the Bosnians had access to guns, then why did so many still surrender? The reason is that in virtually every case of genocide there is a chance, however small (the Bosnian genocide actually had a smaller death toll thanks to quick foreign intervention) of survival, a chance that won't be there if you try to make some last stand with a gun. Also, you said

People shouldn't have to rely on foreign powers to solve problems in their own country, especially in an organization like the United Nations, where objections to the kind of aid that should be provided could arise from almost anyone.

This implies that you think that people trying to use guns to violently defend themselves is an effective way to change the government,which contradicts your statement where you say that they should just be a last line of defense.

[Klokinator]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rv7ZXLU51Hs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFMUeUErYVg

Edited June 22, 2015 by Klokinator

[Pixelman]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rv7ZXLU51Hs

Control =/= eradication

[Klokinator]

Did you even watch the video or just read the title? I know 47 seconds is a lot to ask for, but come on.

[blah the Prussian]

That was one of the more paranoid things I have watched. Essentially, the issue here is that he assumes that the government will do something horrible to the people now that they have a monopoly on guns. This is very clearly horse shit, as in most countries where guns are regulated (read: most of the EU and the Commonwealth) the government does not do horrible things to the people. This is the one argument against gun control that is pretty unambiguously stupid.

[Blaze The Great]

If the Bosnians had access to guns, then why did so many still surrender? The reason is that in virtually every case of genocide there is a chance, however small (the Bosnian genocide actually had a smaller death toll thanks to quick foreign intervention) of survival, a chance that won't be there if you try to make some last stand with a gun. Also, you said

This implies that you think that people trying to use guns to violently defend themselves is an effective way to change the government,which contradicts your statement where you say that they should just be a last line of defense.

My point was that governments should never come to the point that it is obvious to the rest of the world that they need to step in and change something. Peaceful protests should be able to pull this off. They shouldn't have to rely on the UN because the government should change if the people protest it. Rebellion should only be used as a last resort, but change should also take place before foreign intervention.

[Pixelman]

Did you even watch the video or just read the title? I know 47 seconds is a lot to ask for, but come on.

I did watch all of it, lol

The reason I said that however is because it seems like he's saying everyone who wants better gun control wants to eliminate all the guns in the USA, which probably isn't true

Edited June 22, 2015 by PixelmanFE

[Klokinator]

That was one of the more paranoid things I have watched. Essentially, the issue here is that he assumes that the government will do something horrible to the people now that they have a monopoly on guns. This is very clearly horse shit, as in most countries where guns are regulated (read: most of the EU and the Commonwealth) the government does not do horrible things to the people. This is the one argument against gun control that is pretty unambiguously stupid.

Are you implying the USA is like most other countries, when it's already established we're not? We're basically the World Police. We spend more on weapons than the next 20-some countries combined. Corruption is rampant, and we're teetering dangerously close towards a total financial crash which will crash the rest of the planet's stock markets as well. Not to mention our constant involvement in and escalation in other countries' state of affairs. No, a corrupt USA government is not only believable, it is by far the reality. I mean, have you missed the statistics of killings by police? The epidemic of police brutality in this country? I'm not a big fan of conspiracy theories, particularly those about Jade Helm going around (Plenty of evidence shows those are the same military drills that have always happened), but on the other hand, dozens of black hawk helicopters flying inside a city at night time, drills lining up citizens by the military, etc. These are really weird things.

Certainly, these could be trainings against ISIS or whatever (And given that the CIA armed ISIS to attack Assad, that should be a warning sign) but they are out of the ordinary, which is why the people in that video are freaking out. It's not normal. The USA has tremendous power, little accountability, and rampant corruption. So what if a charismatic dictator seizes control? They now have power over the rest of the world, as we have bases in something like 100+ countries. Is it really paranoid to say "Hey man what if the most powerful nation in the world by a factor of ten does something unspeakably genocidal?"

And sure, it's probably stupid to think that citizens with guns would be able to stop the military anyway, with the military's incredible training, vastly better weaponry, incredible surveillance, and technology 20-30 years ahead of anything civilians own. So in that regards, the argument isn't great. But comparing the USA to any other country, other than possibly China or Russia with regards to gun control and totalitarian governments is just a really flawed fallacy.

I did watch all of it, lol

The reason I said that however is because it seems like he's saying everyone who wants better gun control wants to eliminate all the guns in the USA, which probably isn't true

Gun control still means you support the police and/or military having guns instead of the general populace. It means you trust an untrustworthy government to be armed. I don't trust the government, they have done nothing to earn my trust. Sure, crazy psycho shooters like Roof will keep popping up, but compared to the 1 million brown people we've killed in various middle eastern countries, he's nothing. The government kills civilians in other countries guilty of no crime by the hundreds each day. The USA military is the biggest terror organization on the planet, and you can tell because of how other countries regard us.

Raise better children, stop the senseless violence in other countries, that's my policy. Oh, and don't go interfering in other countries or we create power vacuums which allow organizations like ISIS to be formed.

Edited June 22, 2015 by Klokinator

[blah the Prussian]

My point was that governments should never come to the point that it is obvious to the rest of the world that they need to step in and change something. Peaceful protests should be able to pull this off. They shouldn't have to rely on the UN because the government should change if the people protest it. Rebellion should only be used as a last resort, but change should also take place before foreign intervention.

To add to that, peaceful protests succeed much more frequently than violence. Just look at Egypt vs Syria today. So yeah, no disagreements here.

Are you implying the USA is like most other countries, when it's already established we're not? We're basically the World Police. We spend more on weapons than the next 20-some countries combined. Corruption is rampant, and we're teetering dangerously close towards a total financial crash which will crash the rest of the planet's stock markets as well. Not to mention our constant involvement in and escalation in other countries' state of affairs. No, a corrupt USA government is not only believable, it is by far the reality. I mean, have you missed the statistics of killings by police? The epidemic of police brutality in this country? I'm not a big fan of conspiracy theories, particularly those about Jade Helm going around (Plenty of evidence shows those are the same military drills that have always happened), but on the other hand, dozens of black hawk helicopters flying inside a city at night time, drills lining up citizens by the military, etc. These are really weird things.

Certainly, these could be trainings against ISIS or whatever (And given that the CIA armed ISIS to attack Assad, that should be a warning sign) but they are out of the ordinary, which is why the people in that video are freaking out. It's not normal. The USA has tremendous power, little accountability, and rampant corruption. So what if a charismatic dictator seizes control? They now have power over the rest of the world, as we have bases in something like 100+ countries. Is it really paranoid to say "Hey man what if the most powerful nation in the world by a factor of ten does something unspeakably genocidal?"

And sure, it's probably stupid to think that citizens with guns would be able to stop the military anyway, with the military's incredible training, vastly better weaponry, incredible surveillance, and technology 20-30 years ahead of anything civilians own. So in that regards, the argument isn't great. But comparing the USA to any other country, other than possibly China or Russia with regards to gun control and totalitarian governments is just a really flawed fallacy.

Gun control still means you support the police and/or military having guns instead of the general populace. It means you trust an untrustworthy government to be armed. I don't trust the government, they have done nothing to earn my trust. Sure, crazy psycho shooters like Roof will keep popping up, but compared to the 1 million brown people we've killed in various middle eastern countries, he's nothing. The government kills civilians in other countries guilty of no crime by the hundreds each day. The USA military is the biggest terror organization on the planet, and you can tell because of how other countries regard us.

Raise better children, stop the senseless violence in other countries, that's my policy. Oh, and don't go interfering in other countries or we create power vacuums which allow organizations like ISIS to be formed.

What has the military done against the American people that makes them a credible risk? Look you seem smart enough, but this is all pure paranoia.

[eclipse]

I mean, do you really think criminals are stupid? That they don't know the law? In a country with legalized weapons, a serial rapist would prepare for the possibility that the victim is carrying a gun, not to mention he's the attacker so he has surprise on his side. Chances are the girl won't be able to even pull the gun on him.

Second possibility: He takes the gun from her and shoots her . If he's close enough to overpower her, she's not going to have time to take it out, undo the safety, point, and shoot.

I seriously don't get why people ask for souces

Like, seriously, you have google, bing, yahoo for a fucking reason

As for the gun debate, I think we should move the debate to another topic, instead of clogging this one up

Part of it is the source itself. For example, if I bring up a lot of stuff from Huffington Post (as an example), it will tell the others just where I get my information from. Which in turn allows them to make inferences on what influences my way of thinking.

Mass stabbings are not entirely irrelevant in the US or anywhere else, clearly they do happen. I do find the argument of 'well criminals will just use knives/clubs/fists etc." (I don't include explosives in this...explosives are illegal anyway) rather weak on the basis that mass stabbings appear to be less common than mass shootings and also seem to be less fatal (producing more wounded and fewer fatalities than firearms related incidents). This has a certain amount of logic to it, knives require closer range which makes it more difficult to reach targets quickly and also requires more force/precision to kill than a firearm.

If there are sources that claim that mass stabbings are equivalent or greater than mass shootings in terms of frequency and fatality, I'm not finding them.

IIRC, it's "puncture the intestines/major artery and win". It's easier to protect yourself against a knife, by putting something between the blade and your innards. However, I won't pretend that it's a major feat to kill someone with one.

He wasn't given the gun as a birthday present. He purchased the gun using money he was given for his birthday. There's a serious difference.

. . .and THIS is a good argument for better gun control laws. Hell, at least make training and a background check mandatory!

It says we have shitty parenting which leads to shitty people which leads to lots of violent crime which means you need to have a gun to protect yourself.

Which is exactly what I've been saying all along. We don't need gun laws, we need people to start taking responsibility for their actions rather than expecting others to just up and improve themselves. Stop worshipping degenerates like politicians and celebrities and start praising morally sound individuals.

. . .maybe you need to move elsewhere. I don't feel the need to carry a gun around when I'm in public, and I'm not in fear of being shot by anyone, either.

This country is infested to the brim with narcissists, lunatics, apathetic people, lazy people, fat people, and so on. We have among the highest crime rates in the world if not the highest in many categories. We worship inanely dumb celebrities, 30% of the citizens believe the Earth is orbited by the sun (I'm not sure if that statistic is true, back when it was floating around sources claimed it was an wasn't but hey this is still a thing and this so it probably is true), and our country invented Scientology which now has millions of people who eat it up because it just makes so much sense. We're a punchline for jokes in most other civilized countries. So yes, it's really that bad.

None of these are new. There were stupid/awful people in the past, and stupid people now. The only difference is that the entire world is our neighborhood, and more people have the ability to push their thoughts and opinions out into the world.

Also, did you just put "fat" under the list of things that are undesirable? WTF.

I have attempted to shoot a bow and arrow with zero training. Its not easy. Plus, guns are far easier to come by than there alternate weapons you listed.

So have I. Granted, it was a training bow, so the worst I could do was annoy someone with it. I had problems aiming at a stationary target that's far wider than an average human, but I was a better shot than my equally-inexperienced classmates (won an archery competition where none of us had touched a bow before). Oh, and it's near-impossible to carry a bow and arrow concealed.

However, guns aren't simply "point and kill someone". Take a water gun, and attempt to shoot someone with it - a bullet-shooting gun won't stream downwards as much, but it'll have recoil and noise instead. Hell, police officers are trained to shoot at the center of mass because aiming with a gun at a distance, and hitting your intended target, isn't easy.

---

My stance is somewhere in that wall of text.

tl;dr - Killing someone with a knife isn't ridiculously difficult, nor is killing someone with a gun ridiculously easy. The difference, IMO, is distance and speed (and if you're at "can't miss" range with a gun, you're in stabbing range).

[Klokinator]

Not the military, the police. The police now have as much power as many medium sized nations, and corruption is rampant. Hell, this just popped up on my feed. I see a dozen or so of these every day, and lord knows 10,000 or more acts of brutality in one form or another occur on a daily basis without being filmed or recorded in one way or another. This is not uncommon.

The military specifically is not harming the US citizens.... yet. But with the police exercising their power, why not the military eventually? And furthermore, just look to Obama's statements on the matter. (And before the 'course is invalid' argument, you should be aware Politico is one of the most fair and unbiased websites on the internet.) They've killed 4 citizens already, but 'luckily' 3 were just simple accidents. No trial was given to any of those four and now they're dead. What's worse, intentional killings, or incompetence leading to a killing? The military isn't out as bad as police are, but that could very easily change.

Also, did you just put "fat" under the list of things that are undesirable? WTF.

"oh no he fat shamed waaaa"

If you love fat people who are killing themselves and are disgusting to look at so much, go marry one. If you're not sleeping with one then you're a hypocrite. And if you are, good for you. For the rest of us, an unhealthy degenerative lifestyle is not something to be praised.

Edited June 22, 2015 by Klokinator

[-Cynthia-]

I feel sorry for anyone who thinks that a police/military takeover of the United States is going to happen (or has already happened! or whatever). I would recommend that these people seek out mental health professionals to help overcome these paranoid delusions.

[eclipse]

Not the military, the police. The police now have as much power as many medium sized nations, and corruption is rampant. Hell, this just popped up on my feed. I see a dozen or so of these every day, and lord knows 10,000 or more acts of brutality in one form or another occur on a daily basis without being filmed or recorded in one way or another. This is not uncommon.

The military specifically is not harming the US citizens.... yet. But with the police exercising their power, why not the military eventually? And furthermore, just look to Obama's statements on the matter. (And before the 'course is invalid' argument, you should be aware Politico is one of the most fair and unbiased websites on the internet.) They've killed 4 citizens already, but 'luckily' 3 were just simple accidents. No trial was given to any of those four and now they're dead. What's worse, intentional killings, or incompetence leading to a killing? The military isn't out as bad as police are, but that could very easily change.

Oh, man, that TOTALLY just happened to me! Like, last week, I saw this police officer! And he was walking in the opposite direction than me! Since I'm a naturally chipper person, I smiled at him. Which of the following is more likely?

1. He tackled me, handcuffed me, and took me to the police station for questioning without reading my rights.

2. He smiled back and continued on.

If all you hear and subscribe to are stories of things going wrong, you'll eventually think that the world is going wrong. Where are the feeds about police officers quietly handling traffic stops without any other incident? Or the ones where a police car is driving the speed limit, signals before changing lanes, and stops at a stop light and waits for it to turn green?

I suggest getting out of the US and traveling for a bit if you think that the police here are the worst thing ever. Perhaps a trip to Mexico would be nice!

[Klokinator]

Oh, man, that TOTALLY just happened to me! Like, last week, I saw this police officer! And he was walking in the opposite direction than me! Since I'm a naturally chipper person, I smiled at him. Which of the following is more likely?

1. He tackled me, handcuffed me, and took me to the police station for questioning without reading my rights.

2. He smiled back and continued on.

If all you hear and subscribe to are stories of things going wrong, you'll eventually think that the world is going wrong. Where are the feeds about police officers quietly handling traffic stops without any other incident? Or the ones where a police car is driving the speed limit, signals before changing lanes, and stops at a stop light and waits for it to turn green?

I suggest getting out of the US and traveling for a bit if you think that the police here are the worst thing ever. Perhaps a trip to Mexico would be nice!

Yes, because comparing the USA to a third world country is a great way to defend the "we're actually not so bad!" narrative.

Also, that's a logical fallacy.

I feel sorry for anyone who thinks that a police/military takeover of the United States is going to happen (or has already happened! or whatever). I would recommend that these people seek out mental health professionals to help overcome these paranoid delusions.

You're uncomfortably talented at ad hominems.

Edited June 22, 2015 by Klokinator

[eclipse]

Yes, because comparing the USA to a third world country is a great way to defend the "we're actually not so bad!" narrative.

Also, that's a logical fallacy.

Still holds true. Unless I live in Super Paradise, USA, I haven't seen a single thing that you've claimed.

Oh, and posting pics to back your claims up is in really poor taste. It tells me that you're not willing to expound on a point, but rather throw a label on it and call it a day. . .despite that fact that you yourself said that you don't like laziness earlier in this topic.

[dondon151]

klok posts videos with little kids holding gun rights signs

do you honestly think he's not trolling

[Klokinator]

It's funny how a topic that started about racism and the shooting of a bunch of black people by a white guy becomes completely different when the saintly police are involved. Now it's just "Yeah but that one black dude getting the shit beaten out of him and choked/assaulted is not a common occurrence! Lol move to Mexico!"

Look, I know your dad hits you and he cut off one of your fingers, but kids in India are living in slavery! Get over yourself!

Still holds true. Unless I live in Super Paradise, USA, I haven't seen a single thing that you've claimed.

Oh, and also.

Just because you don't see it happening,doesn't mean it's not happening. For a topic full of people who love picking out data and saying "You don't have to see it to believe the statistics!" it's sure funny how suddenly when it comes to governmental overreach/violence against citizenry, suddenly anyone questioning them is a crazy lunatic LOL!

klok posts videos with little kids holding gun rights signs

do you honestly think he's not trolling

dondon posts in all lower case

clearly he doesn't take anything seriously

Look mom, I can ad hominem and strawman too! I'm such a great debater!

EDit: Actually, the statement you posted about little kids and gun rights is correct. My bad. Still a strawman and ad hominem though.

Edited June 22, 2015 by Klokinator

[dondon151]

EDit: Actually, the statement you posted about little kids and gun rights is correct. My bad. Still a strawman and ad hominem though.

well good, that's a start

i am exercising my innate ability as a bayesian statistician; given that person has posted shit before, what is the probability of subsequent posts being shit?

answer: very high.

[-Cynthia-]

There isn't much point in having an actual discussion about this, since you're just going to make claims like 10,000 unreported cases of police brutality each day which of course cannot be verified because the government is covering it up or whatever (not that an increase in police brutality indicates a police state regardless). Youtube videos have almost no standards to being posted and cannot be seen as a credible source.

Edited June 22, 2015 by -Cynthia-