Attack on gay nightclub in Orlando leaves 50 dead.

[Dark Sage]

I would rather have an innocent fall under suspicion and be proven false then have a terrorist not be caught before he or she committed their planned act. There will always be victims of justice and law, but the innocent man condemned is still better than the criminal who got away with it, because it's the question of who would be more affected, the circle of influence, or the community entire? Just a thought either way, as many of my postulates can be interpreted as slippery slopes.

This is a very dangerous train of thought to take because it's so easy for governments to abuse. In fact, it is one of the primary justifications often used by dictatorships as a way to arrest any critics or perceived "enemies of the state".

Edited June 15, 2016 by Dark Sage

[Augestein]

For the love of god, tell me in what world knives can be as effective as a killing device as automatic weaponry to the point where you can kill 50 people and injure 53 more. If you can do that, please teach me your superior ninja skills.

The reason guns are bought is for their superior protection effectiveness (for the case of people that actually want to use it for defense), because they are purposely designed in order to be able to kill people or animals very easily.

"You could just use knives" is a stupid argument, and always has been, and yet multiple people have made it here.

It's not knives. It's things like self made bombs. Like pipe bombs for instance. A couple of those could do significantly more damage than a gun, faster, and more discreetly than a gun. That's the problem. The way this type of attack was done, I'm not sure having a harder time getting a gun would have actually stopped him.

Of course. But that doesn't have anything to do with the fact that the person absolutely wanted to make a statement of some sort with a violent act.

No, but a person without guns could rally together with other people and use other forms of rioting and attacks to cause problems. Look at something like say Missouri with the Ferguson incident as an example for something more recent (I know you stated you aren't American, so bear with me for a minute here). The rioting and the like was absolutely nuts, and guns were barely involved outside of the initial death of a single person.

In this case, I'm not really seeing the relevance of gun control at all here.

You are entitled to that opinion, but it's the opposite of how the Justice system is set up in America, which is explicitly innocent until proven guilty. The reverse may very well serve society as a whole, unless you're the innocent that is wrongly accused. Being punished when in fact innocent is not a benign process.

Sounds great until you realize that if you were ever blamed, you'd be locked away / executed without so little as a fair trial. Rules / Laws are generally made that way to have it be fair. There's too many people as of now that have been found guilty of murder and then 20 years later found to be innocent. The last thing you need is to be able to be locked up for an unclear set of rules that say you *might* be suspicious.

Edited June 15, 2016 by Augestein

[Duff Ostrich]

So you are saying I am engaging in mental gymnastics when I say I advocate for gun control? Because I guarantee you, I am not doing mental gymnastics.

Let's not get things confused here. I said that specifically in reference to people that misinterpret the text of the second amendment. Please reread my initial post if that still isn't clear.

It's not about advocating that, but I'm saying that discriminatory immigration policies are quite unfair, and it seems contradictory to tighten regulations for religion despite being a country originally made up of people trying to escape persecution due to religion. The spirit of the law vs the letter is the idea I'm trying to get at here. Immigration regulations should not be based upon things like religion, especially since there's no way to really tighten policies on religion.

But again, why do you not advocate to make these rights more universal? Isn't the first step to doing so through not discriminatory immigration policies?

Discriminatory immigration policies may or may not be unfair, but I'm not sure how the the first amendment is in any way relevant. Here is the text, for reference:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I don't know why you are talking about the spirit of the law when I was talking about the law, period. Once again, my initial posts to Tryhard reflect the fact that I was simply refuting his claim that restricting immigration is unconstitutional.

As to your last question, I have a few ideas. The best way America can promote secularism, pluralism, republicanism and so on is to ally with those states that have similar institutions, particularly in regions where this is the hardest to come by. South Korea, India, and Israel are all valuable allies, and they treat their people much better than their neighbors do.

There is absolutely no point. I've (and I believe you've as well) have argued with people like Duff Ostrich in the past, and it's the same arguments. Same back and forth. Same bullshit about what America stands for.

I will say that I've never seen a point of contention get so bitter, so heated, so defensive and so quickly as if you just mention gun control. It wasn't even what I was even trying to draw attention to in my post, and yet immediately that's all that's been argued about for the past few pages. I shouldn't have even bothered replying in the first place.

The really contentious part was when you said Americans were cowards, laddie. The gun debate has remained civil, but yes you were the one to bring it up.

You are correct that this is about what America stands for. Every decent country victimized by political extremism should come together and assert its values so that the Islamists know that the west will never succumb to terror. Who knows, if we keep up the pretense long enough we may actually begin to believe it.

Edited June 15, 2016 by Duff Ostrich

[HF Makalov Fanboy Kai]

Sounds great until you realize that if you were ever blamed, you'd be locked away / executed without so little as a fair trial. Rules / Laws are generally made that way to have it be fair. There's too many people as of now that have been found guilty of murder and then 20 years later found to be innocent. The last thing you need is to be able to be locked up for an unclear set of rules that say you *might* be suspicious.

Exactly.

if anyone here has played ace attourny, its "guilty until proven innocent" and its quite an uphill battle if your on the receiving end of the law, heck the games were a parody of japan's actual legal system where its most famous defense attourny won 5 cases out of hundreds.

Guilty Until proven innocent also reminds me of salem witch hunts, and i don't think i need to explain why that was bad.

[Naughx]

The problem is mostly the type of guns that are allowed... The entire purpose of an assault wapons (AR-15, a military-type gun) is for the mass killing of people.

Hunting rifles should still be allowed though.

Edited June 15, 2016 by Naughx

[Crysta]

Yeah I don't think you need an AR-15 to go hunting.

I'm not for abolishing guns completely, but I am for enacting enough gun control laws to make accessibility considerably more difficult for criminals or would-be mass murderers. There is no way you can completely eliminate the possibility of a terrorist of acquiring one illegally, if they're adamant or clever enough, but I see no problem with putting obstacles in their path and it's better than just sitting around, pointing fingers and doing nothing as we wait for the next attack.

The muslim ban the Donald wants will do nothing; this was a U.S. citizen.

EDIT: I recall news stories detailing how the no fly list is prone to error and they should probably fix that first.

And apparently it wasn't an AR-15.

Edited June 15, 2016 by Crysta

[blah the Prussian]

So, to Duff: you say that as I am not American (I actually am, but I've been living in Prague for a while now, and I also don't particularly care about American values if I disagree with them) then I'm not shying away from the fact that gun control tries to restrict freedom; this is true. But now you have to answer me this: what practical benefit do guns bring to society? Why, beyond that they are what America stands for, should citizens have access to them. Don't say "Its their right". Rights can and should be violated; for example, incitement to violence doesn't fall under freedom of speech.

[eclipse]

I'm not Duff. But I'll answer anyway.

Guns can be used for hunting, whether it be recreational, for food, or for certain programs (like hunting invasive species). They can also be used for protection, against things such as wild predators. In an urban setting, it depends on things like the neighborhood. In a rural setting. . .they're useful. And America is HUGE, so people living in rural settings aren't unheard of.

[Time the Crestfallen]

I'm not Duff. But I'll answer anyway.

Guns can be used for hunting, whether it be recreational, for food, or for certain programs (like hunting invasive species). They can also be used for protection, against things such as wild predators. In an urban setting, it depends on things like the neighborhood. In a rural setting. . .they're useful. And America is HUGE, so people living in rural settings aren't unheard of.

Those are all valid reasons, but surely such things can be done with handguns and hunting rifles. Maybe it's just me, but I honestly can't see a reason why civilians should have easy access to semi-automatic (and in some states, fully-automatic and military-grade) rifles (without getting into everything else you can get your hands on) that doesn't involve ludicrous overkill.

Edited June 15, 2016 by Phillius

[Crysta]

Yes, it's like insisting on lighting a fire with a flamethrower.

But I would not be surprised if that's part of the appeal for some gun aficionados.

[Naughx]

^ I don't think that "looking cool, dangerous" is a valid reason to own that type of guns. (It really don't have much more uses than your usual hunting weapons, well except mass killing)

Talk about killing a fly with an hydrogen bomb...

Edited June 15, 2016 by Naughx

[Crysta]

There can be an argument for using them to combat the hostile government when they want to oppress us via the military.

But considering this military has at it's disposal tanks, missiles, and top-of-the-line technology I'm pretty sure you're going to lose regardless.

This ain't 1765.

EDIT: Maybe we'd want them for the zombie apocalypse?

Edited June 15, 2016 by Crysta

[tuvarkz]

Yeap, resistance against a tyrannical government is more than likely going to end in the rebels' defeat from the sheer difference in weapon tech. The importance about it is the capability of the people to resist. Because a full on civil war could easily become a logistical nightmare (Sheer amount of desertions, cities that constantly need food transported to them, roads and other means of transportation that often are barely holding up together and could make easy targets, international influence, PR nightmare, rioting, etc etc) that the US government knows could very well bring the country down.

[blah the Prussian]

There can be an argument for using them to combat the hostile government when they want to oppress us via the military.

But considering this military has at it's disposal tanks, missiles, and top-of-the-line technology I'm pretty sure you're going to lose regardless.

This ain't 1765.

EDIT: Maybe we'd want them for the zombie apocalypse?

There's another problem with this, which is that if you accept that the people have the right to revolt against an oppressive government, you must be prepared for people to revolt against a government that they consider oppressive, but that you do not; the American Civil War is an obvious example. Are you prepared to accept that? Also, I am perfectly okay with hunting rifles being allowed. I draw the line at handguns. Why? I simply don't want private citizens having access to weapons possessed by the police. I want any confrontation between law enforcement and criminals to be skewed in the favor of law enforcement.

[Junk]

Yeah I agree with general sentimentality here of that we don't need assault rifles. Fine with guns used for recreational purposes such as target practice (not for hunting though) but that's for another topic. Feel that gun control can work if its enforced properly.

Regardless think it's unlikely that guns will be completely banned anytime soon heh.

[Tryhard]

The really contentious part was when you said Americans were cowards, laddie. The gun debate has remained civil, but yes you were the one to bring it up.

You are correct that this is about what America stands for. Every decent country victimized by political extremism should come together and assert its values so that the Islamists know that the west will never succumb to terror. Who knows, if we keep up the pretense long enough we may actually begin to believe it.

Alright, mate. You singled in on three words in parenthesis because it's my personal opinion that guns should be regulated at least as opposed to a fucking free-for-all where gun development has come a far way from the muskets when it was 1790, and the notion that the NRA don't care about who they sell guns to because they are just concerned with selling as many as possible, which is true. But who cares, I brought it up, apparently, because I think that Americans shouldn't require more than handguns and simple (hunting) rifles to 'defend' themselves with or people that have mental illness that leads to aggression shouldn't be permitted to acquiring them. Should they?

But for someone who's said this in the past

The matter of creating effective policy is a far more complicated process than simply appealing to lego block philosophy, but nevertheless "defending" the right to bear arms, as inherently unnecessary as such a thing might be, is simple to do. As far as I'm concerned a government loses legitimacy when it tries to tell me I don't have a right to defend myself.

Should I really be surprised?

Edited June 15, 2016 by Tryhard

[Moblin Major General]

Those are all valid reasons, but surely such things can be done with handguns and hunting rifles. Maybe it's just me, but I honestly can't see a reason why civilians should have easy access to semi-automatic (and in some states, fully-automatic and military-grade) rifles (without getting into everything else you can get your hands on) that doesn't involve ludicrous overkill.

The statement about states regulating fully automatic weapons is false. You have to go through ATF to even be licenced to buy them, much less actually receive one.

[Time the Crestfallen]

The statement about states regulating fully automatic weapons is false. You have to go through ATF to even be licenced to buy them, much less actually receive one.

That was poor sentence structure on my part. It was more a remark on the fact that you can get these weapons as a civilian at all as opposed to anything about how easy it is to get them.

[CyborgZeta]

There can be an argument for using them to combat the hostile government when they want to oppress us via the military.

But considering this military has at it's disposal tanks, missiles, and top-of-the-line technology I'm pretty sure you're going to lose regardless.

Any civilians rebelling against the US government wouldn't be going up against the military, because the Posse Comitatus Act restricts the government from using the military to enforce any domestic policies.

That's not even getting into the fact that the military would refuse to act against their fellow citizens.

[blah the Prussian]

Any civilians rebelling against the US government wouldn't be going up against the military, because the Posse Comitatus Act restricts the government from using the military to enforce any domestic policies.

That's not even getting into the fact that the military would refuse to act against their fellow citizens.

If things have progressed to the point where a rebellion of the people would be morally correct, presumably this little restriction would have been bypassed. And the latter sentiment seems awfully complacent. Yes, the military may refuse to act now, but in a decade or two, who's to say they would still be motivated by such noble patriotism. Finally, who the fuck would your hypothetical rebels be fighting if not the military?

[Time the Crestfallen]

If things have progressed to the point where a rebellion of the people would be morally correct, presumably this little restriction would have been bypassed. And the latter sentiment seems awfully complacent. Yes, the military may refuse to act now, but in a decade or two, who's to say they would still be motivated by such noble patriotism. Finally, who the fuck would your hypothetical rebels be fighting if not the military?

The police?

[CyborgZeta]

And the latter sentiment seems awfully complacent. Yes, the military may refuse to act now, but in a decade or two, who's to say they would still be motivated by such noble patriotism. Finally, who the fuck would your hypothetical rebels be fighting if not the military?

I'm guessing you haven't spent time in the military, but the military itself is very apolitical; you can get harshly rebuked, even potentially separated/discharged from the service, for any display or action that could associate the military with a specific political group or candidate. That's not even getting into the divide among enlisted personnel and commissioned officers, which would likely be aggravated in the event of a large-scale civil conflict.

As for your last question; local and state police, as well as federal agencies such as the FBI.

The various state National Guards are a big question mark. Although they can ordered to deployment by the President, they are state militias, so I'm not quite sure where they fall under Posse Comitatus.

[Augestein]

The police?

Has already happened at moments. And yes, animal defense is a real thing. Coyotes are an actual problem in my area.

[Rezzy]

Sounds great until you realize that if you were ever blamed, you'd be locked away / executed without so little as a fair trial. Rules / Laws are generally made that way to have it be fair. There's too many people as of now that have been found guilty of murder and then 20 years later found to be innocent. The last thing you need is to be able to be locked up for an unclear set of rules that say you *might* be suspicious.

I completely agree with you, in case you misinferred my last post.

I grew up in rural downstate Illinois, and I could often hear coyotes howling at night from my bedroom. To my east, was a cow farm, to my west was a wooded area that had lots of wildlife, including coyotes and deer. It was also common for me to hear gunshots during deer season.

Has already happened at moments. And yes, animal defense is a real thing. Coyotes are an actual problem in my area.

Mine, too when I was growing up. St Louis, not so much, but we have different problems here. Edited June 15, 2016 by Rezzy

[Time the Crestfallen]

Has already happened at moments. And yes, animal defense is a real thing. Coyotes are an actual problem in my area.

I know and I acknowledge that as a valid and legitimate reason for gun ownership. My opinions on gun control don't fall under 'should people be allowed to own guns' (well, mostly don't fall under) but 'should X type of gun be available for purchase'. Maybe it's because I'm an ignorant city-slicker, but I don't see why semi-automatic weapons and other assorted weaponry should be so easily obtainable by the masses when every reason for owning a gun (like the one you mentioned) seem easily doable with hunting rifles and handguns.