Random Politics & Religion #00

I'm not scoring any political points whatsoever. I'm merely observing that less than 24 hours after this happened we already have people defending their right to bear arms when that's the root cause of this issue. It's far more disturbing that when this happens you and the rest of your country's pro-gun bigots shove your fingers in your ears and shout "Tralala" at the top of your voice. It's happening and needs addressing whether you accept it or not.

My logic isn't flawed, I'm definitely not a bigot and the right to bear arms is part of the bigger picture, and that right is more important than anyone's life.

Guns aren't costing anyone their life, people are.

We are the sane ones, sorry to tell you. But since you're resorting to insults, I'm done.

No, it isn't.

Also stop with the pointless insults.

What a shame you value the life of your fellow citizens so cheaply.


Of course they are. The ability to kill on this scale would simply not be at most of the perp's disposal without such immediate access to firearms.


Keep telling yourself that. You value the right to have guns you wouldn't need if the law was changed higher than a random person's life. In no meaning of the word is that sane.



Insults? I'm calling you out on your logic and using a perfectly acceptable term (bigot) to describe your view point. This is where you then counter my argument, but if you want to bail because you can't do so, that's fine too. Just don't play victim.

1. I don't value life cheaply at all, but nice attempt at an insult.

2. No, they aren't. The ability would still exist, it's not hard to kill people.

3. That's a matter of opinion, you don't think it's sane, personally I think giving up one's rights for false security is insane. It's a philosophical difference and you repeating insults is counterproductive. Either you want to discuss the philosophy, or you don't.

4. Yes insults, you're doing nothing but throwing insults instead of understanding that there's a severe difference of opinion and as to why. I'm not "playing a victim" I'm merely pointing out that it's rude at the least.

You don't comprehend the philosophy behind the right to bear arms and as to why it and other rights are more important than life itself. I realize that you don't and am trying to explain it to you, if you don't want to discuss it then by all means continue to throw insults and I'll just block you.

Perhaps it's a cultural thing. In England we throw the word bigot around as commonly as wanker in a debate. Out of respect for you I'll cease to use that word.

Anyway.

1) You're implying that your individual right to bear arms is more important than the life of another. You said that. Twice. If that's not placing a low value on life, then what is?

2) Yes, they are. Guns are designed for one purpose: killing things. Other objects they might use have additional uses. A car, a knife, a power tool, they all double up to something other than a weapon to cause severe harm or death. Yes, in the hands of a psycho anything can be dangerous, but in the case of most other weapons they actually have a purpose for existing. Gun's sole purpose is to kill things. If these psychos have limited access to guns, gun crime becomes a rarity rather than the norm. Obama said America has become numb to gun crime. He's right and you're proving the reason.

3) You call it false security but it's so backwards to think that way. You think you need guns to defend against guns, so you get more guns, so forth, so forth. I'm not sure how you don't see that this is just one illogical cycle when the root issue itself is how readily you and the rest of your citizens can get hold of and legally possess deadly firearms.

4) Addressed that, although given I presented some perfectly debatable logic and your reply was "Don't insult me", yes, you did play victim. Perhaps you could tell me why my logic is wrong instead?

1. It's not placing a low value on life, just that I hold rights more important than life itself, as without rights we may as well be dead.

2. No, guns are designed to fire projectiles. I'm sorry that you keep using that emotional argument, but stop, it's counter-productive. Even if it were, it's still irrelevant.

3. It's not backwards, that's not the root of the problem. The root of the problem is that there are evil people.

4. You didn't provide logic you merely provided insults, sorry. Your logic is flawed because you keep using emotion instead of logic. I didn't "play the victim" I merely asserted that I'm giving you respect, I expect it in return.

Like I told Josi: it's a matter of philosophy, to a lot of us our freedoms are more important than our very lives. That's engrained in our history and our lives and is the fabric of our revolution and our Constitution. I don't fully expect a British citizen to understand, but at least I attempted to explain it.

edit: I don't have much else to say as it is, so probably toodles.

I agree, but nobody is talking about taking all of your rights away, so you're just being melodramatic there.


They are made to injure and kill. It's nothing to do with emotions. That is their literal and only purpose. You might use them for recreational activities, but they exist and are often designed to deal as much damage as possible.


There are evil people, but an evil person armed with a knife is far less deadly than an evil person armed with an automatic gun (I note that in this instance he was not, but we're talking about the big picture)


I'm sorry you feel so insulted, but you really are using the victim position as an easy get out here.


I've heard it all before from many different people. You can sugar coat and justify your position as much as you want, but it comes down to you, specifically you, thinking your right to own a gun is more important than the lives of other people. As in every debate of this kind, an attack on your right to bear arms produced a defense along the lines of "Don't take my freedoms from me".


And this is why thousands of innocent people lose their lives in your country. You just refuse to accept there's a problem and keep walking away.

Works slow, so back.

I don't refuse to accept that there's a problem but I just don't agree with what the problem is.

1. But they are, so no.

2. No, they're made to fire a projectile, everything else is you projecting.

3. Yeah, no. Starting with that unless you have a specific license and a ***-ton of money you can not get an automatic weapon.

4. I'm not, you merely kept using insults.

I'm not sugar coating anything and no it's not just me, it's much bigger than me. There you go with resorting to insults again. Anyone's right to own a gun is more important than the lives of other people.

People are losing their lives because there are people wanting to kill them.

But let's pretend for a moment that gun regulation's goal isn't to ban citizens from being armed, let's pretend it would actually curb violence, let's pretend that guns are the actual problem just to appease your world view even with all that, you still can't do what you want to do because it's unconstitutional to do so, not to mention that there would literally be war. So the posturing is pointless, this conversation is pointless as I apparently expected too much of you, my bad.

Good day.

Since we are going to lose the P&R section soon anyway.

No, even if we had total restriction of guns and firearms, we would still have thousands of innocent people lose their lives each year anyway. Reason being: It doesn't matter what you say, criminals do not pay attention to the law and will kill people regardless.

Even if guns didn't exist, people will find ways of killing each other....

I don't remember reading that. Be a brick and link me to the page? I've seen several people suggest that the right to bear arms should be ammended, as has Obama, but nowhere have I seen somebody imply that all of your rights and freedoms should be taken from you.


This really is about as low as an argument gets.


Then how did the numerous gunmen have automatic weapons with them this year? I can think of perhaps half a dozen just off the top of my head and could probably produce more examples at a push.


I'm really not seeing this, sorry. You're being less respectful to me than I am to you right now.


It's not an insult to summarise your opinion? I don't understand why you keep saying I'm insulting you. I'm questioning your stance and all you do is say "Stop insulting me" when I'm not even insulting you.

.
Correct, and it's a lot easier to kill a load of people with a tool designed to do just that than something else not made solely to kill people.


Yes, it's unconstitutional. I'm fully aware of that. This is, as it stands, a hypothetical anyway as the likelihood of any President managing to change your constitution is practically zilch.


Honestly, you've just spent four posts saying I'm insulting you but that's the worst either of us have said to each. You don't get given respect, Jet. You earn it. You're not earning it right now.


Good day.

Oh, this argument again. How original.

Yes, they will, but a gun's sole purpose is to maim or kill something. A car, a knife, a power tool, a sledgehammer... They all double up as other tools, they exist for a purpose other than killing someone and nutters use them as weapons.

And out of all of those, a gun is by far the deadliest, and it's the only one that exists purely to kill people. Yes, nutters will kill people anyway. I agree with that. What i don't agree with is how this somehow makes it okay that guns are so easy to get hold of and that as a result, America has had 295 mass shootings in 2015 alone.

How many mass sledgehammerings or mass hit and runs there's been in the UK, France, Spain, etc, this year? Nutters will be nutters, but you're just making it too easy for them.

So, what's your solution then? Ban guns until the next tool is used to mass murder people, then ban that, and the next, and the next, and the next?

Guns are also used to hunt, and for recreational purposes. A gun's sole purpose isn't to kill humans. But it is used to do so, I will admit.

But I'm not blaming the gun itself, I'm blaming the user. A gun doesn't walk around and shoot people on it's own. A user is always involved. Why not ban the user, since they are the real killing machine in existence.

Yes.

A gun being used to kill somebody is not comparable to an otherwise everyday tool being used to do so. Guns exist to kill, everyday tools have a purpose other than killing. Anything in the hands of a nutter could be lethal, but you're making it pretty easy when just about anybody can get hold of a gun and not only that, but legally possess it because it's in the constitution.

Guns are used to hunt, yes. But what do you hunt? Animals! And what do the guns do to the animals? Kill them! So you see, guns DO kill things. This "Guns don't kill, people kill" argument is sour. We've heard it so many times and there's really no use going there again. Anything in the hands of a nutter kills, but it just so happens guns are pretty efficient at it.

I don't think a killing spree with a sledgehammer will be as deadly as a mass shooting, do you?

Legally? It's not easy to get a gun, there are a lot of paperwork involved along with gun safety classes to go with it.

Illegally? Well, yeah, you could just go to the black market and get one, that's how all the criminals do it. But that's just it, they are criminals and breaking the law is meaningless to them.

Who's making the argument that guns don't do anything more than kill? Nobody is. We all can agree on that point.

And you are going to keep hearing it again and again and again. A person can kill another person with or without tools to assist them. But the tool itself cannot kill without a user to use the tool to kill something with.

You are going after the tool and not the user. Your priorities are wrong.

And they are designed to be so.

Swords also are created with the purpose to kill. Bow/Arrows are too, so are lances. Should we ban those also, because they are tools whose sole purpose is to kill. Which you obviously don't like.

I have more swords and katanas in my house than I do guns. Are you saying I'm a mass murderer in the making?

Jet made it several times.


If you go after the user and not the tool, it's a little late by then, don't you think?


I said nothing of the sort. Please refrain from your typical "Put words in people's mouth" if you wish me to continue talking to you.

No, they don't. This is one of your hangups that you cannot get past, and why you're arguing from emotion, not logic.

The purpose of gun control is to take guns away, that is it's sole and only purpose. As not even the gun-grabbers are dumb enough to believe they can take the gun owners straight on.

None of the killing sprees this year had automatic weapons involved, semi-auto isn't automatic. Considering guns are literally a foreign concept to you, that's an expected mistake to make. (I'll take this back if you have a source of somebody using a fully automatic weapon to kill multiple people in the US).

No you've done nothing this entire time but be insulting, I have shown you respect you did not do the same. You are insulting, whether or not you see it is another story.

A President can't change the Constitution, they don't have the power to do so. Even if they did, anyone who would attempt to modify the bill of rights is a traitor and should be dealt with as such.


Guns are not designed to kill people, once again guns are not designed to kill people. Guns are designed to fire projectiles, keep your emotional argument to yourself.


A gun is not the deadliest weapon, and certainly not the easiest to come across even in "gun toting America."

This is why your argument is of an emotional one, you feel that it's a tool designed only for killing and believe it shouldn't exist, because of feelings, nothing more and you base everything else on this feeling.

Amount of guns I own: 1
Amount of living creatures it's killed: 0

Well, I guess it must be defective.

It's honestly bewildering that you're being serious when you say guns don't exist to kill and I believe this is my cue to leave. I'm not going to discuss this any further with either of you. Respect to you both, gentleman, and well fought all round.

Jet's point is what the gun does, not what it is designed to do.

Again, what's your solution? Arrest everyone who owns an object that could be used to kill? We would all be in jail then, even the jailers themselves.

Again, I own swords and katanas, I don't use them to kill people with, even though they are designed to kill people. I use them for exercise (swinging a 20 lb. sword against a pole for a half hour does wonders to the muscles on your arms). I have 1 gun itself, which I use only for target practice. But since that's bad in your eyes, should I be arrested for the possibility of being a killer, in your viewpoint?

This is not Minority Report here.

I did not put words in your mouth, I asked a question. Notice the question mark at the end of the sentence?

The "guns don't kill people, people do" argument ignores one basic, obvious fact; guns are much more efficient at killing people than anything else. (Maybe explosives, but you don't brandish those in the same way).

What makes a gun so much more dangerous is that it can be used to hold people, even groups of them, in place (since if they run, they get shot), has a quick/no reload, has no real requirements of the user's physical prowess, etc. It's not that someone couldn't kill with an axe, but if someone manages to close the gap and kill a dozen people an axe or sword, that has a substantially higher check on skill and endurance than using a handgun. People can (and will) flee, it's exhausting to swing a weapon with real intent to kill, and you can be overpowered much more easily than if you're packing heat.

So please, drop the intellectually bankrupt argument that all weapons are equal. Guns are designed to do one thing - kill - and they are very, very good at that. A pinnacle of human ingenuity. Suggesting that they "just launch projectiles" or "someone could just as easily take down a dozen people with a knife" is preposterous, and undermines your argument. The only pro-gun argument that isn't completely ridiculous is the one that states that one's freedoms are paramount to all - the "giving up freedom for security proves you deserve neither" argument. If that's the argument you want to make, then go for it - it's a logically sound position that can be argued either way - but anything else is just undermining your position and making you look like the kind of crazy person who shouldn't have firearms in the first place.

my favorite part of this discussion is your comment...linky

"When in doubt, kill everyone and blame the voices in your head!"

/grants you american citizenship and hands you a ak47

welcome to america!

Respectfully disagree, Mr. Torama.

The AR15 was designed as a military weapon. For civilian use the burst and full auto modes were removed.

The 5.56 nato round it fires is too light for hunting use and not accurate enough for shooting competitions.

So if it is neither an assault weapon nor a sporting weapon WTF is it?

With which piece? That guns are the most efficient method of killing multiple people available to an average citizen? That it's much easier to kill with a gun than a knife? Those aren't exactly politicized statements.

Other than Jet, I don't think anyone will disagree that guns are designed to kill, whether it's people or animals.

But even removing guns from the equation will not deter the number of mass murders done in the world. You are correct that guns can hold people in place for an extended period of time, but it's just as easy to stab/cut a group of people in a public place that's not expecting such an attack, such as a movie theater. Or a school.

There are many people who own a gun who have never even killed a person before, who only use the gun for recreational sport (such as target practice or hunting), who obtained one legally and don't carry it with them everywhere, especially public places.

People are going to kill each other, that's an undeniable fact. Guns help people kill others easier, that is also an undeniable fact. But guns themselves aren't the main killers, it's the users who need to be checked.

I know a bunch of people who I know shoot very frequently who disagree with you entirely, but it's moot as it's up to the individual to decide what to use.

But the point being is that it's not an assault weapon.

Wait... WHAT?

Unless we all magically stop demeaning each other and only stick with attacking the viewpoints and topics, we will lose it, and rather soon.

I have been making it a point to not attack somebody, and have not actively attacked anyone (except Jassik) for a while. Even then, after the fact, I'm making it a point not to.

However, there are people who actively want P&R to go away, so they will do their utmost to get rid of it. So, I might be able to count on the regulars to try their best, it's those who actively are *** that will end up getting rid of the section.