Guns?

[soft lava]

So if you was to try and overthrow the government it wouldn’t be an all out war and the government more than likely wouldn’t chose to use tanks and bombs against its citizens for the simple reason of not destroying infrastructure invaders yes but rebellion no not a smart government anyways

[kindred vortex]

Walmart only sells rifles and shotguns

If any do that now I'd be suprised

[kindred vortex]

That's assuming that all the generals and soldiers and people driving tanks and flying jets with all agree with the government and none of them would have a problem with shooting their neighbor or blowing up their kin folk

[amber trench]

What are some examples of revolutions that have taken place without guns?

[willow frigate]

Carnation Revolution of 1974 in Portugal, the People Power Revolution of 1986 in the Philippines, and the Peaceful Revolution of 1989 in Germany. Apparently.

[soft lava]

That’s a lot of assuming 😂

[willow frigate]

Admittedly, the Carnation Revolution did have guns, but they put flowers in the barrels of the guns to signify peace, not sure if you're counting it.

[kindred vortex]

Rd3 practice come in guys

YD9J7

[soft lava]

Need 2 more

1 more

[wet plinth]

That's a different question. I was making the point that even if for some reason your revolution needs guns, you don't all need to own guns to begin with. How many countries in the world, in history, have reached the level of weapon ownership that the US has? I would doubt if any successful revolution in history has ever needed an armed populace.

[soft lava]

American revolution

[lilac olive]

Civil war

[soft lava]

Fought using the populaces guns

[wet plinth]

Guns aren't needed to defend you against a tyrannical government. That's what democracy is for. Guns only defend you against other people who have guns to defend them.

[amber trench]

How else do you fight a tyrannical authority without guns these days?

[wet plinth]

Stop it arriving in the first place by engaging with democracy in your country.

[willow frigate]

Educate your population is the honest answer

[amber trench]

How well did democracy protect the people of Rwanda during their civil war? The people of South Korea and South Vietnam? The citzenry of the Soviet Union, etc., etc.,?

[wet plinth]

Wasn't that largely fought between armies though, rather than random citizens with handguns?

[lilac olive]

Im thankful for the 2nd amendment, i think we’ve already gone soft and other countries see it, if anything was ever needed i dont think the American people would go out there way to go in the fields, but instead stand their ground at their homes

[amber trench]

The American citizens had no army, the British regulars were their army. They only formed an impromptu army in the year before the war and still much of the fighting was supported via the militias

[wet plinth]

Ok, let's go through them. The citizens of the Soviet Union conducted a successful revolution, twice, without needing gun ownership at US levels. Civil wars can kill people quite happily even if everyone has guns, so that takes care of Rwanda. Korea was colonised by other countries with greater technology, same with Vietnam, and both are now largely independent without needing an armed general populace.

Korea and Vietnam are more arguments for not even letting the US army have guns, never mind the citizens.

[amber trench]

If you think that serves as an answer to my question, I think you could benefit from reading more history.

[lilac olive]

Dont let an army have guns

Thats humorous

[wet plinth]

Good. It was a joke, and I thought it was pretty obvious.

[willow frigate]

I believe the point being made there is that the USA had no real reason to be in those countries, and those countries would not require weapons to defend themselves from the USA if they did not invade them.

[lilac olive]

Forgive me if i seem a little lost, but what are we caring about? Gun laws and regulations for crime and violence? Or gun’s involvement in wars

[kindred vortex]

Oh so now it's at Us levels oh okay before it was they didn't need guns now they don't need guns at Us levels well I'll tell you I'd rather have too many they're not enough

[wet plinth]

The former, with a side point of explaining that gun ownership isn't necessary to protect yourself against your own government.

[willow frigate]

I believe it's meant to be about gun ownership as a whole, but it keeps getting derailed.

[lilac olive]

Whats the difference between protecting a home from the government and protecting a home from an invader?

[kindred vortex]

Sorry I was trying to get contacts to the reason why America has a second amendment in the constitution is pretty clear she'll not be fringed upon.PERIOD

[willow frigate]

The government out-guns you no matter what you do.

[lilac olive]

So just give up the guns anyway and comply?

[willow frigate]

Also, why do you need an offensive weapon to protect your home from an invader, as opposed to defensive options to protect your home?

[wet plinth]

If you'll check the message history, you'll see that I didn't say revolutions didn't need guns. I said that they don't need most citizens to own guns.

[lilac olive]

Offensive weapons and defensive options? I mean both sound the same to me

[wet plinth]

There are other, better, ways to protect yourself from government.

[kindred vortex]

You again assuming that everybody in the service is going to follow the government's lead it's not going to happen it'll break out all over the place in civil war

[willow frigate]

Is a moat an offensive weapon? Is a wall, topped with barbed wire, an offensive weapon?

[lilac olive]

A gun can be considered defensive is my point

And sounds more cost effective than moats and walls

[willow frigate]

It can also be considered for its primary function, which is offensive

[wet plinth]

It is in Palestine. But that's getting way off topic.

[willow frigate]

A nuke is also considered a deterrent by many people, but it's still an offensive weapon predominantly

[kindred vortex]

The thing is the 2nd would have to be repelled that's the only way gun laws will change and that's never EVER gonna happen without a fight

[lilac olive]

Thankfully

[kindred vortex]

Amen

[willow frigate]

Yeah, I imagine the founding fathers really had in mind weapons that could perform mass killings from a single person when they created that amendment to the constitution. They certainly weren't thinking about muskets, and that the introduction of amendments from day one would be perhaps to imply that the constitution should be periodically reviewed to keep it in line with modern society.

[soft lava]

And modern society is the product of a government that doesn’t function for the people

[willow frigate]

Maybe the discussion about right to bear arms should be constrained to US citizens discussing, as I don't think anyone from outside of the USA is ever going to understand your points of view on anything, you're quite a different country to many that I've lived in.

[soft lava]

Further justifying the point

[kindred vortex]

Not if you read some of the founders writings. They didn't think that at all. Because the government that has advanced weaponry in leaving the average citizen with a musket trying to put some other disadvantage so I think as far as that goes and I could be wrong from Madison and Jefferson's writings but from what I gather they both are saying we can't let this ever happen we're having this discussion because of freedom of speech you would not have freedom of speech without the second amendment

[soft lava]

Amen

[lilac olive]

The main reason ill support guns is “the morality of one man is the cowardice of the stronger man”

Let alone my bias of literally making gun parts while reading all this 🤣

[kindred vortex]

Here here

[soft lava]

The United States is a constitutional republic not a democracy

[kindred vortex]

Exactly For the people bythe people. The gov served us not the other way sround

[soft lava]

And those of us who understand that will forever and always support the 2nd amendment to protect our first amendment even when it allows people to say stupid things like we should trust the government 100% 😂

[wet plinth]

I mean, the first amendment is not without its problems also.

[kindred vortex]

Yes the government never lies or gets anything wrong they're 100% for a spot on every time just like a parent can be in charge of one kid without screwing something up once in a while try 350 million

[soft lava]

You are correct but we built this country on the belief that everyone is entitled to their beliefs no matter how different they are to our own

[tulip shore]

I'm British. I think that belief is dangerous as some beliefs threaten British ideals

[willow frigate]

I say that everyones entitled to their beliefs, but i'm also entitled to slap you across the face if your belief puts me in danger

[soft lava]

Hell come to my house and let me put a gun in your hands and you’ll be a gun loving fool in no time with that belief

[soft lava]

But what right do you have to strip them of that belief

[willow frigate]

The funny thing is, i'm not averse to taking a gun to a gun range and shooting, I think it'd be fun. I am very averse to holding a gun outside of a shooting range though.

[kindred vortex]

We are a melting pot
Our government needs to stay out of our business as well as all the countries around the world. We need to stop sending aid by the millions and billions to other countries where we have people starving homeless living in the street infrastructure falling apart roads Bridges your prime minister Johnson at the time I believe helped facilitate not having a piece agreement between Russia and Ukraine the oligars that are the material military industrial complex need to use up to ammunition and planes and tanks and they have so they can build a bigger and better new ones and stick it to the American people to pay for it

[soft lava]

So I feel safer at my family property shooting than I do in a gun range

[lilac olive]

True that there’s numerous amounts of gun range accidents

[willow frigate]

I don't actually know what you're trying to convey with any of this, due to lack of punctuation. And i'm not trying to be mean, I'm just trying to understand what you're trying to say.

[willow frigate]

Fair enough, I was unaware that there were a lot of gun range accidents

[kindred vortex]

Basically I'm saying we need to stay out of the world Police business

[willow frigate]

I think the entire world agrees with you on this tbf

[lilac olive]

Yes and no but id get off topic with that

[soft lava]

I’ve seen people go from never held a gun terrified of them to gun loving nut job in one day lol

Well I’ll catch up on this later time to get some work done

[kindred vortex]

I know but gov. Had gotten way to big.

Snowden proved that

Sorry guys we really went sideways with the whole gun law conversation it all started because I was just trying to give context to why we don't have any and will never have any

Even the ones we do have now I believe are out of bounds

[stiff wasp]

Wait. So you actually think that there are absolutely zero legally obtained guns in the hands of people that shouldn't be gun owners?

[kindred vortex]

6 there should be zero gun laws

[stiff wasp]

You don't even believe in like a basic background check, checking for violent felons, mentally ill individuals?

[lilac olive]

Whats mentally ill?

[stiff wasp]

Imminent suicidal people at it's most extreme. Let's go with individuals who "previously attempted suicide"

[stiff wasp]

What about kids under 18? They should allowed to legally buy firearms?

[lilac olive]

The mental health system is fucked so id be pissed if i couldnt get a gun because of inpatient background

[stiff wasp]

I mean there's no way you actually think there should be absolutely zero gun laws

[lilac olive]

I mean felons cant get guns, unless like a governors pardon

But i wouldnt stop “mentally ill” people because its a bs term with a bs system

[stiff wasp]

Right you would think that this is a very reasonable gun control law that would basically be universally accepted by even the most pro 2a proponent. I guess I was wrong

[lilac olive]

I dont think he was referring to allowing felons to have guns but more about what kind of guns you can and cant have/buy

Or attachments

[willow frigate]

The point that you should give guns to people with a history of mental illness because your mental health system is screwed is entirely backwards. Surely the effort would be better placed into resolving the issue with your mental health system, instead of easing restrictions and risking a mass gunning?

[lilac olive]

Yes

But our mental health system probably wont be touched

Too much money to be made in misery

[kindred vortex]

Says shall not be infringed. Doesn't say unless xyz happens

[kindred vortex]

I did

Bird hunting with a .410 at 11

People who are taught how to handle guns aren't afraid of guns

[nimble marten]

Interesting persepctive. As someone who lives in a country where guns ownership is prohibited, I am fascinated by this viewpoint. Couple of thoughts:

No unconstructive shot has ever been fired in my town, dating back to around 1907. No police officer has ever discharged a weapon, and no human has ever been shot.
Good, but this is kinda anecdotal. We know from all the data that in countries where guns are easier to own, there is a higher rate of gun violence. Whether that is in EVERY village, town and city is, in my opinion, not relevant to the discussion. Although you mention it yourself later.

A vast majority of the gun violence is A) gang related or drug related, and B) occurs utilizing illegally obtained weaponry.

A) Sure, but if it's harder to get your hands on a gun, e.g. if they are illegal to own, then gun violence, also in gangs, will naturally decrease due to a mismatch in supply and demand. If there are less guns, there is less gun violence. Does this mean they will not use other methods of violence? No. Although in the country where I live guns are prohibited and gun violence is something that's practically countable on a year to year basis with only a few cases, there are gangs here that use other means of violence, e.g. explosives and other means of brute force.

B) Yes, but if guns are not normalised and not widespread, it becomes much much harder to obtain them illegally. The main problem I see with gun ownership is gun use in surge situations. If you carry a gun, it's easy to also use it. But if you first need to illegaly acquire a gun, which is not something everyone can easily get their hands on, the odds of guns being used in conflicts goes down drastically. Now this does not mean that there is no risk of anyone carrying a gun, but it will not be a problem anymore.

We have had several cases of situations where responsible people with legally possessed guns saved bad situations from becoming unthinkable situations. I'll put this here: https://abcnews.go.com/US/parishioner-gunned-texas-church-shooter-hero/story?id=67982047 Two people died this day. If a good man with a legal gun hadn't stepped in and intervened, the violence would have been 10x.

Sure this does happen, but I would want to respond with an open question (as I have no idea on the statistics on this). If you were compare the amount of casualties that are made using guns, vs the amount of casualties using a gun has saved, would it be able to weigh up against eachother? (idk if thats proper english). But like, if it can save 1 life, but will cost 5 lives somewhere else, would that be ''wort it'' in your opinion, since the one person was saved? Guess thats more of a phillosophical question...

One of the biggest challenges facing us it that if we harshen the gun control laws, that is only going to affect the law abiding citizens. Our problem is with non-law abiding citizens who don't care about the law to begin with. All we would be doing is taking the gun out of the hands of the man that stopped that tragedy from getting worse. Anything that wants to come across that border from Mexico will find it's way across. A lot of the local drug situation in Texas is controlled by Mexican/Colombian/non-American drug cartels. Those people will just smuggle guns across with their drug trade and make sure that their drug runners have a way of protecting their interest.

That's only a matter of time. If guns get banned, then the supply of guns becomes more scarce and naturally over time it will be harder and harder to obtain a proper gun. Suppose all ''legal'' guns are turned in and there are only unregistered or illegal guns left. Than whenever a gun breaks, gets confiscated or whatever, the total supply of guns drops.

I think one important effect you might be overlooking is that due to guns being mostly legal in the US, it is much easier to have an illegal trade in guns as the objects are normalised within society itself. As soon as having / owning / buying a gun is something morbid, i believe that the illegal gun market will naturally shrink. Although I again have no stats to actually back that up.

And whenever guns are illegal, it is much harder to get away with using one. So even for drug cartels it would also be a liability to have runners carry guns, because if they get spotted with a gun somehow, they will be arrested.

Although that's how it works in the country I live. Guns are so rare, that whenever one does ''show up'', there will be anti-terrorist police raiding the person and they get send to jail real quick

Does that mean that we never have incidents with guns? No, but they are very very rare

[soft lava]

Drugs are illegal yet in most major cities in the world minus those in countries who send people to jail for life or death penalty in a few spots you can readily find a supply of drugs anyone with the right mindset could make a homemade firearm the Japanese prime minister assassination

Shinzo Abe in 2022

[tulip shore]

Legally? None. But I think its common sense to aim to preserve more western/democratic/civilised ideology when faced with dangerous views that cause harm or death. Just my opinion though.

[soft lava]

They feel the exact same way about preserving their ideology

Freedom is a double edged sword and it’s sharp

[tulip shore]

Moral relativism is super dumb imo

[kindred vortex]

For number 2 who would you suggest decide this? The same government trying to tell you what is and isn't hate speech?should the military give up all their weapons as well. Of course not or we'd have a North Korean dictator telling us what to do and who to love ( or put dictator here) ,the majority of Americans already don't trust the government . You try and take guns now Ukraine / Russia will be but a hiccup of what is to come nñ²ofdpñ@mild veldt

[analog bridge]

Guns are not a problem. They are a solution available ot the those less physically strong.

[grave glacier]

If I am desperate and looking to rob old ladies, and guns are unregulated, I can assume that most old ladies would have a gun. Therefore, in order to level the playing field I should get a gun of my own to overpower the old lady with a gun.

[amber trench]

I don't know if anyone has ever watched the movie, Duplex, but there is a pretty funny scene where the hitman tries to kill the old lady but she gets him first with a harpoon gun. Moral of the story: don't mess with old Irish ladies.

If you were looking to rob an old lady would you rather rob one who has a gun or one who does not? What's the larger 'inequality of power' if you will: An unarmed man versus an old woman or an armed man versus an armed old woman?

[analog bridge]

You said that much more eloquently than I did, thank you.

[grave glacier]

My point is not the power imbalance but the lethality. I would much prefer my grandma to get mugged, lose any amount of money, and be alive, rather than both parties from the start of the altercation be ready and capable of killing each other at any moment.

I think the idea of anyone who is a citizen of the US is then gifted by the 2nd amendment to use, at their own will, very efficient and lethal force is dreaming of a less progressive and cooperative society. My mind is baffled that anyone living in an 'advanced' society would feel the need and burden of quickly killing some other member or any human for that matter.

[grave glacier]

As for power balance in both the unarmed and armed versions the aggressor has the upper hand because they can choose when and how to engage. This attacking advantage is very easy to see and is displayed in movies and TV shows. With the knowledge of the attacking advantage, if I am defending myself from being mugged I have to be vigilant and ready to always take the mugging straight to lethal force levels. This again baffles my mind because who would want to go around ready and willing to, at the drop of a hat, kill someone. Why, in any level of society we have in the US, is the need to act out my own lethal capabilities a virtue and gift of the 2nd amendment? Because everyone else has a gun and their own lethal capability so I might as well have my own gun?

The need to kill someone stealing from you is tied to the stolen item resulting in your own death. In a developing society with unknowns on your own food and shelter, having a gun or evening the lethal playing field makes sense. How can you justify living in the 'richest country in the world' with I need a gun because if my food or money gets stolen I will die.

[wet plinth]

If I had to choose between an old lady getting mugged, and a mugger being killed, I would definitely choose the old lady being mugged as the preferable option, since it involves the least harm.

Inequality of power is one consideration, sure. But guns don't improve that in the slightest. Guns don't cancel out against each other at all, they are purely offensive weapons, with no defensive capability at all. All guns do is give an absolutely massive imbalance of power to whoever aims their gun first.

[nimble crypt]

Damn that is strange, I could never understand protecting evil over the innocent. As long as you do harm to others for fun or profit you deserve as much shit coming your way as possible. As far as the gun debate goes, I'd rather no one had handguns but if criminals can get them illegally civilians should be able to get them legally too. As a proud gun owner in a place where barely anyone has them I'd honestly prefer if 99% of people did not own them because I have no faith in humanity..

[wet plinth]

I don't write people off like that. I don't believe in good and evil. Everyone's trying to do the best they can with their lives, and everyone's life has equal value.

[marsh python]

I would say advocating for your grandmother to have no control over her own destiny is not that great. Putting a specific scenario where everyone comes out unscathed is the best case scenario. The statistics for home invasion death, for instance, is a worst case scenario. Talking about a scenario where people just don't walk away is real when talking about equalization.

[nimble marten]

To me it is equally mindblowing that you suggest killing someone performing a crime is less of a problem than just let the crime happen and no one gets killed

[marsh python]

What brings about the assumption that no one will be killed during a crime?

[nimble marten]

The example was one of mugging an old lady, which, in itself does not neccesarily involve physical harm, let alone death

[marsh python]

Ya, I addressed that as a bad example. A more real example is an old lady being mugged and raped.

[nimble marten]

To me thats a similar question. To give a general answser, personally i don't believe that deadly force is ever favourable over non-deadly force in any situation. So if the outcomes are : woman gets mugged and raped but both parties live or women shoots rapist and therfore doesn't have to undergo mugging/rape then I will still choose for the first option. Not because I believe that raping or mugging is a good thing, but because I believe that using deadly force under pretty much any circumstance is something that should be avoided by default.

So therefore I have a really hard time fathoming the idea that you would be okay in this situation to use deadly force

Its mindblowing to me how some people apparently believe that taking someones life is an appropriate response in similar situations

[marsh python]

I have zero problem with an old lady preventing her own rape. Your suggesting that she has non-deadly options to do so and that would be great. I was saying that no harm coming from a situation where there is no equalization is not real. If the old lady cannot prevent mugging, she cannot prevent rape. She also cannot prevent her own murder.

[nimble marten]

Sure, but im focussed on the outcome, not on the act. If she cannot prevent her own murder, but she does not get murdered, then in my opinion she should not be in the position to decide whether she want to take a life or not

But we will never see eye to eye on this

[marsh python]

With no equalization the senario where no one is murdered is not real.

[nimble marten]

are you claiming that all rape ends in murder if the victim does not use deadly force?

because that is the biggest bs ive read all day

[marsh python]

No, I am claiming that if there is no equalization and no way to control your own destiny there is no preventing anything which includes all crimes.

Not just pretty scenarios.

[nimble marten]

I am not sure i fully understand unfortunately

and i rather not put words in your mouth

[marsh python]

Ok. Crime happens. Muggings happen. Rape happens. Murder happens. In the situation where an old lady has no control over which crime is ultimately going to happen, she can be raped and left alive, she can be mugged and left alive, she can be raped and mugged and left alive. She can also be left dead in all of those scenarios and this happens in real life.

When talking about equalization, scenarios that ignore that anything can happen, including being left for dead/dead are not real.

[nimble marten]

I think i am mostly confused by the term equalization. What do you mean by it?

[nimble crypt]

giving the victim a chance to fight back

[marsh python]

Equalization is currently the right to bear arms. There are non-lethal alternatives coming out that are not on par with a gun yet but advancements are being made.

[nimble crypt]

if you are alone and 5 guys with blades try to hurt you having a gun is an equalizer it makes you have a chance to resist harm being done to you that you could not prevent without the gun

I was recently put in such a situation

I was threatened by a gang of beggars with knifes and after smacking one with my steel baton in the head they decided it was not a productive venture to keep bothering me. My steel baton gave me a force multiplier and the extra range needed to make them unsure and they decided to fuck off.

[nimble marten]

I see. Then my response would be that a potential outcome of being murdered does not warrant the use of force with a deadly outcome. It must be certain beyond reasonable doubt that the situation is going to take a life before I could consider it justified to take someone else's life. I know that practically this is impossible to judge in such a moment, therefore I am of the opinion that using deadly force in self defence is not something that should be legal.

[marsh python]

I have been the equalizer (myself) for a female. They were going to throw her off a 60 foot cliff at an illegal swimming place. She would not have made it to the water. I joined the circle of 5 guys closing on her until close enough, then joined her an let them know that I would take some of them with me. The cowards backed off. Yes, I was willing to die for a stranger.

[nimble marten]

I am not opposed to the right of definding yourself, i am opposed to definding yourself with lethal force / lethal outcome

[nimble marten]

But this is not using a gun nor is it using lethal force so in my opinion this is justified

For me the problem lies in someone deciding to take somone elses life, even if they justify it under self-defence

[nimble crypt]

I don't use a knife for self defense because it is bound to do harm however you use it that is why I use my steel baton, it works great.

but I do it for legal liability, I'd gladly take the life of anyone intending to harm me.

[nimble marten]

And this is the exact notion that I am strongly opposing.

[marsh python]

There are non-lethal alternatives making headway but I personally don't fault an old woman doing whatever she needs to do when someone threatens her safety.

[nimble marten]

But it has probably much to do with the society we grew up in

[nimble crypt]

I am also 6'8" so I have only been bothered 1-2 times in my life and only get to argue with anyone when I have pathetic looking friends around me begging for some harassment...

[marsh python]

I see the criminals as the ones at fault and not the old woman who is in fear of the criminals who, in fact, do threaten her safety.

[nimble marten]

And I do, if it involves taking one's life

As a matter of fact, where I live it is in pretty much all cases illegal if you use deadly force for self defence and you will go to jail for 10-25 years if you do so

I can only think of a couple exceptions

[wet plinth]

That's how mutually assured destruction happens. It's not ok to retaliate with a massive increase in force.

[marsh python]

You can't see the future or subject an old woman to rape and death, if that is what will happen.

[nimble marten]

Sure but I don't believe that one should be allowed to DECIDE whether to take someones life in self defence

I am all for self defence- just not by taking someone's lifee

if you have a gun and you blow someones legs of, im okay with that

but if you purposefully kill them in self defence if there was another option than you are just as guilty to murder as the guy is to rape

[nimble marten]

not legally* this is just how i see it

[nimble crypt]

I will never change my mind that anyone intending to do harm for fun or profit by doing so willingly gives up their value as a human and member of society and therefore has no value or rights anymore.

[nimble marten]

And i will never change my mind that i fully disagree

But this is a much more fundamental discussion

do you believe the value of a human life is tied to their actions

i don't

[marsh python]

Your talking about suicide?

[nimble crypt]

The value of a person is obviously tied to who and what they are.

If you are a child predator and you are focused only on that demented fetish you are a lesser human compared to a productive member of society.

therefore a perpetrator is inferior in value to his victims, but you can debate to what extent.

[marsh python]

I believe all people can change so I don't ascribe to lesser humans. I do ascribe to fatal actions or very stupid actions or actions that can harm others. Sure, at the time, preying on children should have consequences but that doesn't mean they cannot change. Just like fatal actions have consequences and actions that can harm others can have fatal consequences.

[nimble marten]

Well to me thats not all that obvious, since i disagree

[nimble crypt]

so to you a doctor that can cure millions of people with his research is equal in value to a child rapist in prison?

[nimble marten]

His person as member of society is not. The value of his life itself is

but those are two separate things in my opinoin

[marsh python]

Is the child rapist remorseful?

[nimble crypt]

life has no value it starts and ends and is of no consequence, actions have value, your potential is your value

[nimble marten]

thats an opinoin, not a fact

but it is consistent, i just don't agree

[nimble crypt]

in my opinion life is too fragile to have value you as a person give it value and meaning

the same way you can be more of a person 2000 years after you died than most are today

[marsh python]

You don't need my opinion to have value within yourself.

[nimble crypt]

sure, but what good is your self worth if you are worthless to others

[marsh python]

Are we talking about pyramids now? I am confused. This is not really the place for world views unless it pertains to actions of crime or self defense, etc.

[nimble crypt]

well the entire point of my argument is that a good person should have the right and ability to defend from evil

because good people respect laws and bad people can always get a gun I was making the point that people deserve the ability to protect themselves and their loved ones.

[marsh python]

That is true. Cury thinks the same thing but negates lethal defense. My point is that non-lethal defense is not up to par with a gun.

[nimble crypt]

And banning good people from owning a gun because they may kill a criminal is not a sane view i you want a functioning society.

guns can be non lethal

[nimble marten]

What is this view? In a lot of civilised countries, owning a gun is strictly illegal. How is it required for a functioning society?

[nimble crypt]

wherever criminals can get a gun, and do get guns, civilians should have the opportunity to do the same.

if not you get shit like Brazil and California

In the EU you do not have gangs of animals with guns robbing people unless you are one of the importers of such people like France and UK and they are having LOADS of fun with that situation

[marsh python]

Most civilized countries have much more control over their borders and not a crime syndicate pushing through their borders like the US. I think we have been over this exact debate though. Its something that is always left out about cartels, gangs formed by cartels, drugs, human trafficking, and illegal gun trade from the US southern border.

Maybe it was with someone else though.

[nimble crypt]

any way, in a perfect world no one would hurt each other and we could enjoy guns in peace, in this world the best you can get is a fighting chance. I love owning guns and I would avoid using them for self defense to the greatest extent of my ability to keep my family safe by any other alternative as I would hate to risk my right to keep owning them, and where I live no one else has them they are so so rare, and I prefer it this way.

I just can't accept that you can live a good productive life and have no right or means to protect it, it just sounds like too much of a tragedy.

[nimble marten]

I think thats an illusion. Its ignorant to pretend these are issues that are unique to the US. One reason it may be more difficult in the us is due to the prevalence of guns, which is precicely because they are easier to obtain because they are party legal.

guns do not increase danger, they do however increase the risk

[marsh python]

It may not be completely unique to the US (I can see crime syndicates pushing borders wherever they can) but the models presented are certainly not even close. UK, Japan, NZ, AU are all island countries and have a ton more control over their borders than even EU countries. But examples of crime syndicates on the other side of borders pushing into, say France, is just not there. The reality of cartel gangs in the US is well documented as well as the drug, human trafficking and illegal gun trade. I am open to examples of other countries with this same problem and how having no guns is done with those numbers of gangs and illegal guns coming in.

[nimble crypt]

There is a huge difference between street gangs with guns and organized crime

street gangs terrorize civilians organized crime uses guns mostly in their relationships with other organizations.

Nobody will stop organized crime from having guns but they are not an issue most of the time. and a gun will not help you in any way when they target you any way.

[marsh python]

What I refer to as cartel gangs is gangs that are street gangs in the US that have ties to the cartel and gang members are recruited both from the US and from fresh cartel associates entering the US. Its well documented within law enforcement. These gangs are crucial drop off points for illegal guns, drugs and trafficked humans. They are organized as a network but are just street gangs with connections (i.e. clout).

[nimble crypt]

The US is a really different situation in most ways

the US government has been pumping dugs into their won streets for decades and now China is doing it too, that is where most of the Chemicals the cartels use come from and the fentanyl and much more..

more like war by any means, the UK did it to the Chinese and now they do it to the US...

[wet plinth]

What on earth are you talking about there?

Guns are obviously not necessary for safety in many parts of the world. That's just a fact.

[latent garden]

Disclaimer: I haven't read this thread except for the original message. This is my thought as I understand it.

The barrier to taking another's life is the press of a button; no physical effort. This may be an arbitrary line, yet such as the age of 18, we need to draw a line somewhere.

[amber fossil]

my argument is guns make it equal. i get its easy but i think women have a right to equal protection, same with the elderly, and so forth. until you give me a better way for people to defend themselves. shall not be infringed. and if in US and against we have states that dont let ya go there. Love and good wishes

[latent garden]

Is that not what the police is for? It's definitely not normal outside the US to expect the elderly to be able to defend themselves. Also, all the points you may attribute to self-defence also apply to attackers. Not all criminals are physically strong. Obviously no hate man, love you too.

Please forgive me in case I am repeating what has already been discussed, if so I will stop.

[limpid blade]

Is there a way to summarise discussions like this? Perhaps from Petes point of view, and where he's at in his thought process? 1226 responses... @tepid arch

[tepid arch]

Initially I made a post:

'a world without guns' my operating premise here was to attempt to figure out whether a person who is talking about guns is approaching this from its logical root.

My framing of 'a world without guns would be logically better than a world with guns' presupposes that there is a problem with guns specifically. Which as we can see by this thread there may or may not be.

So I made a second thread, this one focusing on the logic. This thread actually has less to do with guns than the first and more to do with how to logically structure thought. Hence the boxes.
Box 1: there is no problem with guns, cool then end of convo.
Box 2: there is a problem but not with guns specifically, the problem lies somewhere within human nature and human violence. This is the box where the vast majority of people hang out and where most of the hot air and waste of time conversation occurs.
Box 3: there is a problem with guns inherent to guns specifically.
This is the part of the conversation I am actually interested in having. If box 3 exists, few people have been able to meet me there and also following my other rules of conversational engagement (clarity, brevity and coherence) so I consider this thread a failure.

Additionally when I tried to discuss the concept of logic on YT it ended up causing that entire video to be unable to be monetized thanks to yt's advertiser friendly guidelines (and much thanks to the advertisers to determine the boundaries of free speech for us /s) so while I am happy to have the conversation here few people have thus far been able to meet me in the place where I am interested in discussing the issue. Instead choosing to hang out in box 2, moralize, politically posture, bloviate and or waste each others time.

TLDR this thread is more about logic and less about guns. Most of the conversation around guns becomes quickly deranged in a way that is still surprising to me, although nothing new.

[plush geyser]

Is this post about whether our government should have the power to control guns? And if so I am confused how it is mean to simply be logic and not political. Idk maybe I am confused on the difference.

[tepid arch]

The original graphic I posted at the top of the thread

[steep ferry]

I end up squarely in the first end of convo. And to that I have issue with. You have to define the problem. Guns are a tool, just like phones. But there are people addicted to their phones, does that make phones problematic? Guns are an essential part of redneck life with hunting for sport but also protecting yourself and your land. I'm not shooting a fox that is eating my chickens with a bow and arrow. Or more relevant to you in Canada, I'd imagine you would want to protect yourself from bears with more than a knife. Now sure, city folk do have a harder time understanding the necessity of Guns, and those 2 demographics will always be at odds on the subject.

So I think the first question should be are guns necessary. Only after accepting guns are a necessity can you move toward a solution/discussion regarding the perceived gun problem.

[limpid blade]

Allright, then it's perfectly clear i think.

So the question is if guns have a property or attribute that is causing a problem, and the problem is that it makes the world a less good place?
We have to define what a "less good place" means i guess, but lets not for now. We can just assume that ppl killing ppl means less good for now.

Guns go under the category weapons.
Does weapons make the world a less good place? Hard to say, it depends on the weapon.
If you can defend yourself from it easily, it's probably not a problem since you probably wont die.

Thought experiment:
Imagine if you could buy a "kill a person you are looking at button" in your local grocery store, it would probably cause problems because of availability, range, power, firing rate, how easy it is to use, and that it can be concealed (not detected easily by others).
So those factors seems to determine how "problematic" a weapon is.

But the ultimate factor is probably how hard it is to defend against i think.

Conclusion: Guns are very hard to defend against, this is probably the largest part of the problem.
Other factors such as the ones listed in the thought experiment probably enhances the problem.
The most efficient way to deal with the problem is probably by removing as many guns as possible from the public.
No guns available = less OP means for ppl with intent to kill other ppl = probably less ppl killing ppl.
It needs to be regulated to reduce numbers.
It is up to the government and fellow citicens to regulate and control.

[tepid arch]

Yes! And Necessary has specific meaning in logic. Which folks may or may not know if they haven't studied logic.

[steep ferry]

Well as I understand it, you were asking for logical help. I hope I could help bring you back to the fundamentals. I do believe that graphing is logically flawed from it premise.

[tepid arch]

Yeah how would you change the boxes

[limpid blade]

Well, when we hunt we usually just bring the dog and 2 rifles, 1 of them being extra in case we encounter aggressive bear or moose.
We don't bring any other guns.
Do you think all guns are justified in the hands of civilians?

[tepid arch]

"So the question is if guns have a property or attribute that is causing a problem, and the problem is that it makes the world a less good place?"

Yes.

Is there an inherent property to guns that makes them different from other tool/weapons and if so what are we going to do about it?

[limpid blade]

I want to rephrase the question to:
"So the question is: Does guns have a property or attribute that is causing a problem when they are easily accessed by the public, and the problem is that it makes the world a less good place?"
Yes, there is a combination of 5 qualities specific to what makes guns problematic when easily accessed by the public.
range, power, firing rate, how easy it is to use, and that it can be concealed (not detected easily by others).
1 property, being hard to defend against
Set a maximum lvl on some of these 5 qualities available to the public.
A hunting rifle is probably something that is a good example of what is a good standard, and being licensed together with other regulations is probably a good way of governmental control.

[steep ferry]

How else do you propose to overthrow the government if guns are removed from civilians? That is the reason they are protected by the US constitution. In order to overthrow a tyrannical government

[limpid blade]

Pitchforks works aswell

[steep ferry]

That only works on witches

[elfin imp]

We'll do it with Twitter, I mean X. Everyone knows that the only true power lies within social media these days. /s (kind of).

[wet plinth]

Democracy? That's what it's there for.

[steep ferry]

Sure media helps just like the federalist papers back in the day, but the revolutionary war wasn't won with words

[steep ferry]

It's been a good system so far, except that one incident back in the 1860s

[wet plinth]

Which do you mean has been a good system? I don't think I would agree that owning guns has been a good system, since it has some major drawbacks without being able to demonstrate that it has been beneficial. Whereas democratic system don't have those same drawbacks, and have demonstrated their effectiveness at removing undesirable governments in many, many countries.

[steep ferry]

You said democracy was there to prevent tyranny, which has mostly worked

[wet plinth]

OK, cool. Yes, I agree with that. And I think it's also worth mentioning that when it hasn't worked, there have been other solutions that have worked without needing widespread gun ownership among the citizenry.

[steep ferry]

I'm pretty sure most tyrants have been overthrown with militarized citizens

[wet plinth]

Do you have evidence of that? Where a tyrant was overthrown because there was widespread gun ownership among the general populace?

I would have thought the best argument for guns being necessary was that they acted as a preventative measure. But I'm not sure there's any evidence of that either.

[stiff wasp]

If the CIA coups a government, technically it is the militarized civilians of the USA's tax dollars that's funding it. 🤣

[karmic atlas]

I don't agree. The United States is the only country that has guaranteed rights under the law, which even still they are being limited and pushed against. A lot of government are tyrannical, it's just that people like limited rights, or they don't care enough.

It depends on what we consider tyranny I guess

[marsh python]

1860's? Germany was a democracy in the 1930's.

[marsh python]

If your following logic, it goes down two trees. Guns that are easily accessed by criminals and guns that are easily accessed by law abiding citizens.

Logic being applied needs to take in all factors, including need for protection.

[limpid blade]

Hmm, ok let me try again.

Second try, what do you think of this reasoning? @tepid arch

We want to investigate: If the world would be a better place if all guns ceased to exist?
Hence - We want to investigate if there is a problem with guns inherent to guns, not just some guns but all guns, whoever wields them under any circumstance?

• The single most obvious property specifically inherent to guns is that it grants a wielder the power to kill more easily and with more precision compared to without and compared to other weapons. T/F? True

If i make two opposite statements, we can investigate if one is more obviously true or false than the opposite.

• Granting a wielder the ability to kill more easily and with greater precision can make the world a better place? T/F? Dunno

• Granting a wielder the ability to kill more easily and with greater precision can make the world a less good place? T/F? Dunno

• Granting a wielder the ability to kill more easily and with greater precision CAN be a problem? T/F? True

• Granting a wielder the ability to kill more easily and with greater precision CAN NOT(never) be a problem? T/F? False

• Is there circumstances when it is a problem? T/F? True

• Is there circumstances when it is NOT a problem? T/F? True

So we have concluded that the inherent properties of a gun CAN be a problem in some circumstances.

• Would preventing these problematic circumstances make the world a better place? T/F? True

• Would preventing these problematic circumstances make the world a less good place? T/F? False

• Can preventing these problematic circumstances be done? - Probably, to a degree

• How? - The most efficient way is probably to restrict access to guns in general.

Conclusion:
The problem is not weather or not the existence of guns makes the world a better place or not, but under what circumstances guns causes the world to be a less good place.

[marsh python]

I understand your logical arguments look good in a vacuum but the reality of the vacuum is what is being addressed which wasn't addressed. Thus the conclusion is way off. You may want to incorporate other factors involved such as:

-Granting a wielder the ability to kill more easily with greater precision becomes a problem with law abiding citizens or criminals? Criminals

-Would restricting access to guns work best with law abiding citizens or criminals? Law abiding citizens

-Who would benefit more from restriction of guns? Criminals

So we have concluded that the inherent properties of a criminal doesn't respect restricting of guns. (not fully but you get the point)

Conclusion:
The problem is not weather or not the existence of guns makes the world a better place or not, but under what circumstances guns can be restricted. With the factor of criminals wielding guns, if we get all illegal guns off the street first then restriction may be possible.

BTW, I have already addressed 'How? - The most efficient way' by making smart guns. Ones that only turn on by the owner, call the police and start recording when the safety is off.

[limpid blade]

I intended that restricting access to guns would incorporate illegal guns as well, as in removing guns in general, even if it might be difficult and take a long time.
But i get your point, it might not be realistic in some areas within a foreseeable future.
We are talking about the world though, not just where you and me live.

Smart guns sounds like an interesting idea.

Personally i don't have a need for guns other than hunting rifles, no1 i know owns anything else, and no1 i know have been killed or injured where guns would have made a difference being used for self defense. I know one or two ppl that have been robbed with a knife, losing their phones. (during a 20 year period)
The most serious encounter i know of was one person who experienced a home invasion, but they just knocked her out in her sleep, took all her stuff and left.

Perhaps we live in "different worlds", how do i account for that?

[stiff wasp]

Couldn't criminals also just bypass the smart gun mechanisms?

Guns aren't these complex machines that need electronic controls

[marsh python]

The objections I get are from both sides. The side of anti-(hand)gun doesn't want any guns. The side of 2A doesn't want any restrictions. Both sides are quick to point out flaws they see in making smart guns instead of creating solutions around flaws they see. Smart guns would not be perfect but you can make a 'tesla' grid (wire grid) encased in polymer around the brains and impose high penalties for tampering while calling the police with location if tampering was detected.

There are solutions and we have the technology but no drive to move forward on this issue of having law abiding citizens able to be part of a 'militia' when guns are needed (calling the police with location instantly while being able to help). No drive with either technology or either side willing to compromise (including Pete).

[stiff wasp]

Maybe like bullets with confetti like tasers come with to tell you where they originated from. But then there's the hand load ammo crowd too

[marsh python]

If guns are recording everything, its like a body cam of sorts. There would be lots more data after shootings happen if a smart gun was on the scene (although, as stated, not perfect). There would be cops on the scene sooner also.

[stiff wasp]

"yeah officer i store all my guns inside a faraday cage gun safe."

[stiff wasp]

Won't criminals not care about these harsh penalties for tampering?

[marsh python]

You mean wouldn't criminals like a game of 'operation' that calls the cops if they miss the adam's apple?

[stiff wasp]

Smart guns would be nice for like "4 year old gets into unsecured guns type situation" which would be good, but it feels like it's missing a lot of other types of situations

[marsh python]

Start making security that deals with those and lists of things that need more attention.

[stiff wasp]

How to steal a smart gun™

1. Steal a smart gun
2. Put it in a faraday cage
3. Hop in a van and drive away
4. Remove the smart gun parts

I'm predicting 5 years until we have our first 3d printed gun shooting

[limpid blade]

Here you are required to have your guns locked up in safe, bolted to the wall when they are not in use.
This is to prevent guns from being stolen and end up in the hands of criminals.
Gun thefts are very rare though, even though there is about 25 weapons owned per 100ppl.

[marsh python]

Ya, the gun casing would be ruined and you would have to know exactly what to turn off/destroy in order to discard something that would be broadcasting. Even then you better be sure no slip ups are in your faraday shield. I mean its possible to include the firing pin as electronically triggered if it were an issue, taking the guns ability to fire without a homemade electric pin. The point is that we are not on a cat and mouse game of technology with criminals and guns. It would be a much better game than we have now.

[stiff wasp]

We've got enough examples legally obtained guns that are used in shootings to just focus on that issue for now

[marsh python]

Yep and zero examples of legally obtained guns wielded by their owners that called the police with location the moment they turned off the safety. Are you arguing that no guns are better than smart guns and willing to not move forward with compromise?

Because there is the 2A.

Based on all the resistance I get from both sides, I am pretty sure no compromise is wanted from either side and guns will just stay like they are.

I will continue asking though to see if anyone is different.

I envision law abiding citizens being a set of the police force with training and gear (smart guns) that act in conjunction with the local government and the pervasiveness of legal bought hand guns being sold second hand disappearing through rules and regulation of that set and laws against the manufacture of non-smart guns as well as regulations of manufacture of smart guns. This allows the focus of illegal non-smart guns imported.

[limpid blade]

You can also look at statistics from other countries and try to conclude why the problem is smaller in some and larger in others. Perhaps it will give you a wider perspective?

[stiff wasp]

My gun control thesis basically is that gun control is such a regional specific issue that we really can't get too far talking in general terms. Gun control is and should continue to be different between UK, us and even between different states.

[marsh python]

True but America definitely has a problem, especially with compromise and there are no smart guns nor a desire of manufacturers to incorporate any benefits of smart tech (the audience is 2A pro). This is a crux of a problem that I probe. Its a nasty one.

[marsh python]

Also stats doesn't quite do it for smart tech benefits like having to lock guns away for safe storage instead of having reliable enough smart tech to make that a safety thing of the past. Simply put, guns are about the only thing smart tech doesn't want to touch in manufacturing.

Guns are also about the only thing the 1st world population has resistance for smart tech about. We embrace bad smart tech knowing it will improve on just about everything else.

[stiff wasp]

Are you talking about smart gun mandates? Or just the overall lack of like fingerprint locks on guns?

[marsh python]

Overall smart tech on guns is lacking. I mean, I haven't looked into what tech is available (I am not in the market) but refrigerators are more upgraded than guns. I get that bad smart tech shouldn't be used but smart tech is to the point where problems with guns would be less than minor with minimal testing (not saying that minimal testing should be used).

[stiff wasp]

Right that's just a demand issue than. No reason for companies to offer smart guns if not enough people are going to buy

[marsh python]

Oh, I understand your first question better now (I think). Yes I am suggesting that smart guns be regulated as the only guns legally able to be manufactured and that those smart guns only be sold to people who want to be part of a 'militia' of sorts and go through training to act with cops when their gun calls cops because of the need to use their gun.

As in 'turn off safety to call the cops', when the cops get there 'identify yourself as the caller', follow the cops instructions. -Hand gun training (simplified)

I think the cops and the military should receive smart gun tech first. Citizens can come later.

Mandates to take away non-smart hand guns can come after enough citizens own smart guns.

That is just my timeline though. Getting agreement of compromise is the hard part in moving forward with any timeline.

[marsh python]

As I said, the target of manufacturers is 2A pro.

[wet plinth]

Um, what? You think that the US is the only country that guarantees the rights of its citizens under the law? I think the rest of the world would disagree with that. From my point of view, the US guarantees its citizens substantially fewer rights than a lot of countries do, particularly when it comes to working conditions and healthcare.

I would hold that it is very unlikely that guns will be banned in the US until the people there don't feel like they need them. Guns have to be redundant before people will give them up. So in practical terms the focus should be on just making the country safer in general, which means prioritising targeting the causes of crime. But I do think that having guns so accessible to everyone IS a cause of some types of crime. We should definitely try and investigate if there is a way to make it more difficult to use guns offensively without making it more difficult to use them defensively.

[marsh python]

Working conditions and healthcare is a misnomer and dogwhistle for politicians. Most Americans don't know their rights when it comes to FMLA, OSHA, etc. Its just that we are allowed to quit (for any reason) and be fired (but not without just cause). Its called at will employment. Also we can have supplemented health care depending on income while still choosing packages. Its just that the cost of healthcare was never addressed and the market is falsely monopolized by insurance through laws.

[marsh python]

I have been talking about smart guns

[low sail]

I think as @marsh python pointed out smart tech in guns would reduce some of these scenarios, in cases where tampering is irrelevant, the two main cases I am thinking of would be:

1. Cases where children accidently shoot themselves. Since presumably the child would not be a registered user on the gun

2. Police shooting with the justification of "He went for my gun", since unless the person being arrested is the cop´s biological twin, he would not be able to use the gun, even if he stole it, and thus you have no reason to use deadly force to stop him stealing it.

But overall let´s assume we can´t make people on the North American continent reduce gun usage. Ok then what.

I would suggest treating guns like you would treating cars, have people be evaluated before obtaining guns, likely also create a federal file on the person, if they show signs of mental disability, the degree to which should disallow gun ownership, can be discussed separately, or intent to commit a crime with said firearm, ban them from purchasing guns in general, until further federal evaluation.

Then require all registered gunowners to comply with training programs comparable to driving school, but for guns. Upon failure to certify or failure to keep certification up to date, repossess the gun.

For legal citizens this could provide a framework for gun training that would make concealed or open carry, a not totally crazy idea, and reduce accidental shooting which in my opinion is the real problem with widespread guns.

Guns have the added problem of being a tool with a high degree of potential collateral damage, not present in let´s say knives, failing to accurately hit your target with a gun, and injuring or killing an unintended target is far more likely than accidently stabbing the wrong target, which is what in my opinion makes guns a less desirable self-defense tool.

[steep ferry]

Well their citizens didn't rebel against it.

[marsh python]

That is like saying Nazi's didn't kill opposition or enact gun registration (used as gun control) in regard to citizens. Just saying one incident back in 1860's is not really accurate.

[steep ferry]

Regardless, it's not been too many incidents. That's just the one in us history that comes to mind.

I think we still agree on the necessity of guns for protecting our freedom and property

[stiff wasp]

I've fleshed out the tiers a bit since last post
Reasons to own a gun tier list
S - Work or Survival
A - Sport
B - SHTF emergency situations
C - Self Defense
D - Overthrowing a tyrannical government
F - Doing crime

[limpid blade]

So, where do we draw the line of how powerful a weapon can be be4 it becomes a problem?
Accidents happen because guns are too powerful and easy to use right?
So if guns didnt exist, less accidents would probably happen and it would be harder for criminals to hurt you, since guns makes it easier for them.

You would resort to other means of defense, and perhaps feel that you need less to better defend yourself.
The attacker would have to be more determined to hurt you since it would be harder.
With a spear and a shield you would be able to defend yourself quite well.

Either you run and call for help, or you stand your ground. Either way, the attacker will have great difficulty hurting you without getting hurt if you have some basic training.

Perhaps i can describe this in Risk terms 🤔
Defending with a shield and spear against medieval weapons is like being a Capital against an attacker.
Defending against guns with guns would be more on equal terms, maybe a little bit like true random.

[stiff wasp]

We have any an-cap mail order private nukes for everyday citizens in here? Those are fun to talk to

[marsh python]

Going into alternate history is extremely problematic with all the factors that can come into play. Basically why Pete's first thread was a bust.

Even just talking about defending oneself against extremely powerful animals like bears, lions, tigers (oh my) is a historical unawareness within conversations like that. Its easy to blow off the actual hardships of life historically when transferred to modern terms and thinking.

[limpid blade]

Yeah, i figured that would be a problem.
I tried to avoid it but i made the mistake of bringing it up when trying to illustrate a fight between humans with medieval weapons.
I'll delete that sentence.

So.. the only reason we need guns in relation to animals is for hunting and protection while visiting areas with dangerous animals right?
There might be options, so if guns in relation to animals is a problematic part of this, there might be options to consider there other than guns.

[marsh python]

I was just speaking of dipping into alternate history or ignoring of parts of history as problematic. The hardships of life in history while we had many more extremely powerful animals is just an example of something we can't alter and still has some relevance today.

Historically, animals were a large problem of survival. Its part of life today but not to the same degree.

[analog bridge]

If my Grandmother could have the chance of wounding or killing a person who in this hypothetical is ok with "MUGGING A GRANDMOTHER" I think that is the best option for her, the other people this person will inevitably mug and the rest of humanity.

[kindred vortex]

I've never known a gun to jump up out of a drawer or off a table and pull it's own trigger and shoot someone the same way I've never seen a vehicle down a half bottle of liquor start it's own engine and go out and hit another vehicle with reckless abandon

[stiff wasp]

What would you say is worse, an idiot with a car or an idiot with a gun?

[marsh python]

Depends. An idiot with a car who hits a pole vs. an idiot with a gun who shoots his foot is a hard question. An idiot with a car texting is very dangerous. An idiot with a gun has to actively point it at people.

[kindred vortex]

At some point you have to have accountability for your actions. The 4 major Democrat run heavy on firearm laws cities in the US account for over 63% of fatalities by firesrms. Law abiding citizens weren't until recently able to purchase or transport a weapon. Over 50% of firearm deaths nation wide are committed by a minority that makes up only 13% of our population and unfortunately I believe that is by design. We shouldn't be having this discussion we should be discussing an actually important issue like why does the government now control the seeds the farmers use. Seeds the are now modified so they won't produce more seeds naturally or that the FDA. Approved lab grown meat for sale for human consumption without having to label it as such so you don't know what your buying. Don't believe me go. To the FDA website and look it up. Or the fact that there have over 1/2 asany deaths because of a vaccine than the thing that caused deaths in the first place and of those deaths if they died of let's say a heart attack but had covid antibodies it was considered a covid death. These are iseues needing discussion wether or not I have a right to protect myself in a republic which is all about personal freedom and NOT a democracy is a god given right. Without freedom of speech which is gone without protecting ones life is no longer free but a slave. Slaves by definition have no rights.

[limpid blade]

"Over 50% of firearm deaths nation wide are committed by a minority that makes up only 13% of our population"
13% o.o that seems like an insanely large number.
Do u mean that 13% of the population have or will kill someone with a gun?
Or does it mean that of the part that have or will kill someone, 13% of those people account for 50% of the deaths?

Because it sounds more realistic that 13% of the people that kill people with guns account for 50% or more of all firearm deaths.

[stiff wasp]

Nah it's def a race thing, saying that minorities commit the most crimes or something, believe it's a common conservative talking point

[stiff wasp]

Do you believe in restricting access to legal guns for violent felons out on parole?

[limpid blade]

in comparison then...
I brought up some statistics from where i live.
In 2022, firearms were used in 63 of the observed cases of lethal violence which corresponded to 54 percent of all observed cases of lethal violence.
In 2022, 116 cases of lethal violence were confirmed in Sweden.

So 63 deaths from gun violence with a population of about 10.400.000 pepole.
Lets say 60 deaths in 10.000.000 pepole.

I imagine the numbers is roughly similar in the us?

How many people is there in the us, 300.000.000 roughly?

60*30 = 1800

https://www.omnilert.com/gun-violence-statistics
The number of deaths due to gun violence is 20.000...

10 times more in the us than here 🤣

wth

[kindred vortex]

A minority that make up only 23% of the USA population commit over 1/2 of all deaths by firearms.

[stiff wasp]

Isnt Sweden the country where everybody is required to have an assault rifle?

[limpid blade]

sweden have 23 guns per 100 capita
us have 120 guns per 100 capita

no

[stiff wasp]

Oh right Switzerland

Not Sweden

[marsh python]

Its for sure a conservative POV. The biggest problem is not taking away any real data from it. It could be far right or middle right which is a big difference. Its easy to blow off that point without understanding concern of the statistics. The original abolitionists (Lincoln supporters) that have a concern about how races are treated would be concerned about the 13% (which may be inaccurate slightly, it may be 20%) and if that % is by design since historically, that % was much higher before programs claimed to help said %. One of the key words is "unfortunately" meaning concern over the status quo of the situation, although judgement is something I reserve. The biggest questions is how the % has shrunk and why, being skeptical of the governments role.

[limpid blade]

The survey found that 6% of the U.S. population is hunters, about 3% of the swedish population is hunters.
lets say 6% of the swedes were hunters, then the number would increase to 40 guns per capita.
Us have 3 times as many.
Why do you need so many guns though?

[kindred vortex]

I don't disagree at all with what your saying but it has no relevance in the USA.Not like say China putting more pollutants in the air and water than all other nations combined but we focus in on western nations and don't hold China accountable. That's a global issue gun control is not

[kindred vortex]

Facts don't care about your feelings George Orwell said it best, " the farther a society strays from the truth
The less that society wants to hear the truth"

[wet plinth]

Writing statistics like that implies that there is a causal relationship between being part of that minority and causing firearm deaths, which is misleading and can promote discrimination against minorities. So I would suggest it is a good idea to be more careful with reporting statistics. The causes of firearm deaths are actually different problems, which disproportionately affect certain minorities.

[marsh python]

I would agree with being careful with it.

[wet plinth]

There is quite a bit of misinformation in this message, and in the message about pollution, but we should probably try and stay on topic so I'm not sure here is the best place to challenge it.

[kindred vortex]

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7242a4.htm

I didn't say anything derogatory in fact I think there are factors in play that make it higher by design and it makes me angry that is the case.

[kindred vortex]

That's just coal plants
https://www.statista.com/statistics/859266/number-of-coal-power-plants-by-country/#:~:text=China has the greatest number,plants on the Chinese Mainland.

[karmic atlas]

We are the only country that gurantees its countries rights given by God, and allows the citizens to protect their rights with the 2nd amendment. If you cannot protect your right you might as well not have any rights, which we see in other countries where they are constantly doing stuff like infringing on the rights of speech, self-defense, etc.

[karmic atlas]

Guns are already being removed. They've removed many firearms already, they've introduced laws where people can send in request for you to not have guns because they feel you are not safe or you are an extremist. Subjective laws are not logically sound.

[karmic atlas]

One way to make guns more difficult to use offensively is to train and equip people to use guns defensively. If I think ima get shot comitting a crime, I'm gonna think twice about doing it.

[karmic atlas]

There is no reason to limit guns at all in my opinion. The 2nd amendment clearly states that the right of the people to bear arms shall NOT be infringed. It doesn't say shall have a ton of laws limiting it, or shall not be infringed as according to laws.

[wet plinth]

I didn't say that you did say anything derogatory. I was just saying that I thought it was a bad idea to post statistics like that, since they could easily be misunderstood.

[kindred vortex]

Understood I apologize if I've offended anyone. That was not my intentions

[kindred vortex]

I couldn't agree more. Not only is this coming under fire with the feds trying to get all weapons information from the county sheriff's departments but when a group that are all about elections for the people try removing someone from the ballot for reasons that person hasn't even been convicted of let alone charged with something is rotten in Denmark as Shakespeare would say
LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE.

[karmic atlas]

I think people feel too safe nowadays, which is good and bad. It's good because of course we want to be safe, but that safety makes us forget the reality of the world. Such as the whole reason the US was created and the 2nd amendment written.

[kindred vortex]

Here here

[low sail]

I don´t think Trump´s electability is at all relevant to guns, unless you think his supporters are going to enact the second American civil war if not elected.

But that aside is it really that unreasonable to attempt to introduce legislation that prevents, what I hope we can all agree are bad things, by making small changes that should not change the availability of guns, outside of people who are proven to mentally unfit to have them? Stressing that political opinion should never be a criteria of mental fitness.

[wet plinth]

The stats on overall pollution levels that I've seen place China as the country that produces the most pollution within its borders, but it's not more than all the other nations combined.

It's also worth remembering three other things. Firstly, that a lot of the pollution that poorer countries produce within their borders is actually going towards products that western countries use. We've outsourced our pollution, but our lifestyles are still responsible for it. So the place to tackle that pollution is still in our countries. Secondly the US, for example, has produced a lot more pollution historically than China has. If we recognise that some degree of pollution has been necessary for economic development, then the US is still a bigger offender. Thirdly, China has a much larger population than any of the western nations, and actually produces much less pollution per capita than most western countries. So it is actually much less of a problem than western countries are. So for those reasons, saying that China puts more pollutants in the air and water is highly misleading. It does actually make sense to focus on western countries.

[kindred vortex]

I personally don't believe guns are the main issue. I believe the desensitization of violence in our society makes putting violence on someone easier to stomach. Which if you been in a war changed your perspective entirely. Once you see real people screaming and missing body parts you'll never be the same.

[karmic atlas]

Completely agree.

[kindred vortex]

I would like to see the per Capita figures tbh
The thing is Western countries agree with you and are trying to right the wrong which I don't completely buy into as there was more carbon in the air 800,000 plus years ago than today. China doesn't care what they put in the air or water and the population argument doesn't hold water because it isn't a get out of jail free card. That's like saying it's okay for the elitists to fly around on private jets but not normal citizens.

[wet plinth]

I don't know what a god has to do with any of that. But it's equally possible to argue that the US as a country is massively failing its citizens by failing to protect them to the point where they need to handle that themselves. You argument is like a parent saying to their child, "I have given you the right to find your own food." I mean, sure, that sounds like a good right to have in theory. But it's a big problem that it's necessary.

You may or may not be aware, but in other countries our rights are also protected. We just don't see the need to give people the right to do harmful stuff. But that is what the police and government is for in most countries that aren't the US. It sometimes baffles me how the US even has a government since a good proportion of its citizens don't know what it is for.

[kindred vortex]

https://youtu.be/8DSi2gzIkHM?si=K-82wa1VlBRwx0d_

[wet plinth]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita This wikipedia page has a list of pollution by capita. Or you can google it fairly easily.

On the issue of there having been more CO2 in the air 800,000 years ago, I refer you to this website which answers a lot of climate questions like that one: https://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm

I'm not saying that we should ignore the pollution China is producing. I'm just saying that we are still a bigger problem right now, so it is a bit hypocritical of us to complain about China's pollution.

[karmic atlas]

The point of the 2nd amendment isn't to just protect your self. It's also to protect the country from threats foreign and domestic. Such as a foreign invasion or a tyrannical government like the one the 13 colonies rebelled from. Just because we have the right to defend ourselves doesn't mean the government doesn't also have that responsibility. I think you are conflating the two.

[wet plinth]

But if your government did the job, you wouldn't need to, and so you wouldn't need guns for that purpose.

[karmic atlas]

So you expect them to be at the scene of every crime before they happen? I think you are setting unrealistic expectations there. They have the responsibility to protect us, but we also have the responsibility and right to protect ourselves. Many people choose to rely solely on the government for their protection, which has worked for some, but not all.

[kindred vortex]

Tell that to the Jewish people that died in concentration camps that gave up their guns when asked . It's all good til you need it. The 2nd amendment in this country is for our protection against government over reaching
Which they are doing now. The ones in charge do not like people who think and act with logic. They don't like us having a tea party or questioning why we don't like inflationary spending. We are looking at a government shutdown of NON- essential workers because we don't have a budget. If they are non essential why do we need them? Taxes the less money we have the happier they are. I don't like that we are the world's police. We need to stay out of it. Why do we send money to foreign countries for things like pensions, healthcare, homelessness etc. yet these are major problems here at home and don't spend 1/8 of that money at home

As it devalues our money, causes inflation and does nothing for us.

Military industrial complex that's why

Our defense budget is beyond absurd

[low sail]

"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."

that would be the first amendment.

it expressly forbids the acknowledgement of any religious institution on a federal level, which by definition means your rights are not under any god or gods.

I do however agree with being able to defend said rights is a good idea, I personally just believe you can add preventative measures, to reduce accidental shootings that only cause misery.

[steep ferry]

You may have skipped a part "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

In this sense "creator" is God

[karmic atlas]

That is not what it says, you quoted the 1st amendment then spoke something different. It says Congress shall make no law establishing a religion, not acknowledgement of a religious institution

[low sail]

https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/full-text?gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAiA44OtBhAOEiwAj4gpOQry6TVRBxQeLWL513uk3y2fjOVN_zQyqa8Pap4oPrQlQucqOTo4BhoC2P4QAvD_BwE

that is my source, to me it looks like a government website, if i am wrong i apoligize, but i would like to see where you would pull it from then.

[karmic atlas]

I said you quoted it correctly but then you said something completely unrelated to the quote

[steep ferry]

It does not deny God, it prevents a specific religion from ruling the government

[kindred vortex]

My

[low sail]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

correct me if I am wrong but, is Christianity not a religious establishment?

[steep ferry]

Most founding fathers were very religious and wanted to ensure religious freedom for all

[karmic atlas]

It is a religion, it has not be established as the religion under law

The founding fathers fled religious persecution fron the British, they all had some sort of religious belief. The law was to keep the government from forcing any one religion as the only religion that can be practiced.

[steep ferry]

I think he's having trouble grasping the meaning of respect

[low sail]

Correct me if I am wrong, while the declaration of independence is an important historical document.

It is a declaration of war on the British in order to obtain freedom from said rule as well as a justification.

But it should not be a legal document that has any influence on the established rights of the American people?

[karmic atlas]

You are correct with that, it does not put forth any laws. The constitution does though

[kindred vortex]

It's called the bill of rights and it's the first 10. Amendmemts

[steep ferry]

It still came first

[low sail]

And you don´t believe the intent of the founding fathers could be to prevent said exact same persecutions, of other people, by making sure no singular religion is ever entombed within the law?

[kindred vortex]

And they held a Congress to decide what they as individual states wanted uniformly in a government mainly need for defence and commerce and not laws of life.

[karmic atlas]

It only says congress can't make laws establishing a religion. Every single law that can be introduced could be argued with a religious view, so there is no way to say that no religious laws can be implemeneted.

You are right that that is the intent, to prevent the government from forcing a religion. But not to prevent some religious moral laws from being implemented.

That would imply murder could not be a law as that is a moral belief based in religion

[steep ferry]

It does impede a serial killers pursuit of hapiness. It should be overturned

[karmic atlas]

well the pursuit of happiness isn't included in the bill of rights though lol

[kindred vortex]

All that you are arguing was suppose to be state level not federal. If you don't like the law's on your state move to somewhere more what your moral beliefs are.

[karmic atlas]

I don't think I follow? You're saying the 1st amendment was supposed to be state level?

If you're refering the the law about murder, is that not a federal law?

As well as state

[low sail]

"the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
"the brutal murder of a German holidaymaker""

making murder lawful would prevent it from being murder, but you do realize that the taking of another life being wrong is rather antithetical to the second amendment right? since if you don´t dare to take a life there is little point in your right to defend it

[karmic atlas]

Thats why there are exceptions to laws, especially when they would infringe on constitutional rights, thats why if you kill someone in self-defense you can be cleared of that charge

[steep ferry]

True, but the declaration of independence was quoted many times in Supreme Court rulings as historical context for the constitution

[karmic atlas]

I'm just simply arguing that it would be illogical to argue that no laws can be made that hold any religious views as any law could be argued to hold religious views

[karmic atlas]

That is true, but since it isn't a right granted in the constitution, if Congress makes a law against it, then that's the law

[kindred vortex]

ok the first 10 amendments and the constitution were basic God given right that they (states)had to agree upon if they were to EVEN be a united state's a republic by definition is about individual rights given by God, evolution whatever YOU want to call it. You have a right to your beliefs as long as they don't infringe on mine. Me owning a gun does NOT infringe on yours
.

[karmic atlas]

Yea.. what does that have to do with what I've said previously?

Also the constitution prohibts the government from infringing on your rights, not other people. Laws have been put in place to prevent some examples of humans infringing on your rights though.

[low sail]

That I can agree with, but my introduction of the first amendment, was merely to establish that the rights are not god given, but given by the constitution itself, and the people ready to defend it.

God was never a factor.

[kindred vortex]

There is a thing called implied law or we wouldn't need a supreme court and political party judges wouldn't matter because it would be black and white

[karmic atlas]

Well that just goes against history though. The writers of the consitution believed in God and even said that our constitution would not work for an areligious group of people. God did have a factor in it, but they wanted to make religious persecution not an issue.

[kindred vortex]

God was a huge HUGE factor don't kid yourself

[karmic atlas]

Yea laws are up for interpretation, just like pursuit of hapiness, you can pursue your hapiness as long as you don't breka any laws.

[kindred vortex]

AMERICA is the fact that we don't care what color your skin is or where you were born. Or what if you even believe in such a thing as religion you practice or what in your own privacy you find attractive and wish to engage in.

[low sail]

Do you have a source for that, because I genuinely would like to read it, for historical context, as I have said before the constitution makes sense in a lot of aspects, but I don´t believe you have to be religious to believe that, since personally I'm agnostic.

[karmic atlas]

Yea, let me find it. I don't have it on hand.

As for the constitution making sense to agnostic, yes it does make sense. That is because we all have a moral law on our heart given by God.

[kindred vortex]

You're RIGHT. That's the point you can or not believe in God
It's entirely up to you
That's why God was a huge factor. Does it make sense now?

[karmic atlas]

https://constitutionallaw.regent.edu/preserving-a-constitution-designed-for-a-moral-and-religious-people/ Very first line

[kindred vortex]

Me believing you are or aren't going to hell should have no bearing on how you live your life. As long as and I stress as long as it doesn't infringe on mine

[karmic atlas]

The moral people is one that I left out on accident that is big. I believe most people subscribe to most Christian morals such as not killing, letting others live their lives, etc.

Our constitution wouldn't work for an a-moral person though such as Hiter, or Stalin.

[kindred vortex]

You teaching critical race theory and saying that my kid can makeup their own mind on if they want life altering permanent changes to their body when they can't drink til 21 yet at 18 die for this country giving the ultimate sacrifice or smoke is ludicrous to me
Why nor let them at recess?

[karmic atlas]

I personally think any rights granted to an adult should be given at 18

I think the drinking age is stupid to be set at 21

when like you said you can fight and die for your country at 17 at the earliest, but mostly 18

[kindred vortex]

This country has no right telling other sovereign nations what laws to enact or we stop if , pull our bases if not is insane.

We don't want people doing that to us

[karmic atlas]

No country could do that to us

Unless the entire world got on board

[kindred vortex]

They already are

[low sail]

I don´t know much about CRT, and what I do know I hold to be bullshit, so don´t put that on me.

That being said while I am all for personal choice, I also find any body modifications on a person under the age of legal consent to be distasteful at best.

[karmic atlas]

I find it to be child abuse at best

[kindred vortex]

Sorry wasn't directed at you as more of a general out there statement

[wet plinth]

There are many ways to protect yourself from crime. The best way, is to try and make sure people's needs get met and don't need to turn to crime. Insurance doesn't protect you from crime per se, but it protects your from the consequences of crime. Another way is to make crimes harder to commit, by restricting weapons and means of causing harm.

Guns are not necessary for protection in most countries, which proves that they are not intrinsically a necessary part of protection in our human existence. If (and it's a big if) they are necessary in the US, it is because there is something different about the US that makes it a much more dangerous place overall than most of the rest of the world. If we find out what that is, and change it, then guns won't be necessary there either.

[low sail]

The only Christian moral I personally hold would be.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"

My objection to murder is far more rationally inclined, I simply believe it is hard for a society to function if said practice is not discouraged.

[karmic atlas]

The reasons for guns is because other people have them. Even in other countries you still have criminals getting guns and using them, its just on a smaller scale. Wasn't there a mass shooting in Austria or Switzerland just a few weeks ago?

[steep ferry]

@tepid arch this is my first attempt at a flow chart. it could still use some work. but it covers the basics for me.

[karmic atlas]

So you are saying then that some moral standards that you do not necessarily believe in are better when it is the standard?

[karmic atlas]

2nd amendment isn't just refering to guns. If you look at the revolutionary war it was private citizens and companies with stuff like warships and cannons. The people are the militia to defend this country

[kindred vortex]

Point is we got enough to fix at home
We should let everyone do the same

[steep ferry]

And guns ownership is a part of that

[kindred vortex]

Correct but also why we do individual states still to this day

State militias

That is

[low sail]

I am saying that I do not believe the taking of another life is morally wrong, only that it is to be discouraged if you want a society that actually functions.

[kindred vortex]

Yes

Made up of individuals at home in different states
To collectively band together to fight a common foe

[steep ferry]

I specifically didn't say guns overthrow tyrannical government, but that guns allow it to happen.

[kindred vortex]

That is why some states have a death penalty and others donot

But it's not up to the federal government

State rights almost always trump federal law ( though over the last 150 years is the exact opposite)

The state became addicted to federal tax dollars. That's why things like speed limit was uniform the government decided that 55 mph was the max and if you didn't comply you did t get themoney

[wet plinth]

Yeah, again, there are a lot of misconceptions in there. This isn't the place to go into all of them, but the one that is relevant to this discussion is the idea that if the Jews in Germany in the 1930s had had firearms then the Holocaust wouldn't have happened. That is false. A small group of people with firearms cannot stand up to a whole state. The idea that owning a gun means that the state can't impose its will on you whenever it wants is, I think, obviously untrue, because there will always be a big disparity in power levels. The US government imposes its will on US citizens all the time, regardless of weapons, and the US army could easily overpower any group of US citizens any time it chose. What keeps US citizens safe from that is the same thing that keeps citizens of other countries safe from it: democratic involvement and oversight.

[kindred vortex]

It was for roads and highways connecting interstate commerce. That's how they pulled off the tax

[kindred vortex]

Again I'm not saying it wouldn't have happened. It would have what I'm saying is you could go down fighting

[kindred vortex]

Tell that to the 350 million guns in the usa

The whole point of the 2nd

Also your assuming that the army would go along with it. They're made up of individuals who would rather shoot you than their brother. Which happened in the civil war

[wet plinth]

The first part of this message is the point exactly. If you have already given everyone guns, then guns become a lot more important. If only a very few people have guns, then guns are very unimportant.

The occasional shooting event in a country where guns are heavily controlled, is a preferable situation compared to extremely common shooting events in the US where guns are not heavily controlled. It's better to have a situation where guns are restricted to a few criminals and law enforcement, than a situation where guns aren't restricted.

[kindred vortex]

I don't believe in the slightest the Jewish people could have over come Hitler

[low sail]

It would not have prevented the holocaust, because the majority of Germans at the time either agreed with the practice or did not object to it, as you said it was the state against the Jews.

The second amendment is not supposed to prevent a majority of people from enacting a will, that would be undemocratic, what it is supposed to prevent is a small number of people enforcing their will on the greater whole.

If something like 60% of the German population was against the holocaust, armed and ready to stop it. I bet you it would not have happened.

[kindred vortex]

But they aren't Americans who have if in their blood to fight and defend what they believe in

[wet plinth]

But in that case, it wouldn't have happened whether they were armed or not.

[wet plinth]

The reason there is a greater whole in the first place, a government and police force, is to stop a small number of people enforcing their will on others. The citizens don't need guns to protect against that if they have a democratic government.

[low sail]

Which would be why the second amendment is not very relevant to the holocaust, no?

[wet plinth]

One of several reasons, yes.

[wet plinth]

If the army or police doesn't go along with the government trying to impose its will on the citizens, then the government has no means of imposing itself anyway. So the citizens would especially not needs gun to protect themselves in that situation.

[low sail]

I believe the whole thread "The only relevant political issue is electoral reform" was started precisely because @tepid arch that is actually exactly what most lawmakers in democratic nations are currently doing.

[kindred vortex]

It been interesting for sure gentlemen but I mist depart. My game is this evening and I need a couple more practices in
I hope to see you all on the battlefield of RISK. Good luck if you are in the tourney. And may God or not have your back . But I will say GOD BLESS AMERICA. Dont give up on us yet. We still have some fight in us.

[wet plinth]

Yes, we're still figuring out what the best way of doing that is. But it's far from being completely ineffective even in its current state.

[low sail]

But do you really believe that removing the threat of a direct overthrow of said government, would make it function better?

[kindred vortex]

Ok if you say so. It's down to good, bad, right, wrong. Everyone can feel it in their guts. I guess come Nov election we will know where we are are we under martial law, quite possible, seeing a vote of confidence for old Joe which is also quite possible. We shall see

[steep ferry]

Guns are not the reason for America's high gun violence rate. It's America's attitude to take "justice" in their own hands.

[kindred vortex]

You're not from America are you. No I really gotta go
Later sir's

[low sail]

I would argue a knife or fists are plenty effective at vigilantism, less guns would definitely reduce the total amount of gun violence, the only question is weather or not it is worth it, in an American context.

[kindred vortex]

Violence is violence period. I just chose to stop it upon me Ii can by any means necessary. I guess the Ukraine should just fold up shop. Wait them America would lose influence

[steep ferry]

Oh I am. Its definitely a root cause if you think about it

[wet plinth]

In a democratic political system there already exists a means of removing a bad government. We just vote them out. Removing guns doesn't prevent government from being removed. It's also highly doubtful whether owning guns would allow you to overthrow the government anyway.

But I do think that mass gun ownership does make the job of the government and police force much harder. One of the most fundamental parts of a functioning society is for everyone to agree to abide by the same rules, and if people are owning guns for the purpose of resisting any government attempt to do anything they personally don't agree with, that's going to be a problem. I get the impression that this does happen from time to time.
So yes, removing guns would make a democratic government function better.

[kindred vortex]

At that point you're a slave so it wouldn't matter

[wet plinth]

At what point?

Not owning guns makes a person a slave?

[low sail]

Russia is a democratic federation, good luck voting out Putin.
Also again as stated in the other thread, this method of overthrow only actually works if you can vote in people who will commit to meaningful changes, right now the only difference between politicians is the colour they say their politics are, there is no real difference in what they actually will vote into law.

And it is practically impossible for outside candidates to ever be elected into a seat of actual power to change that.

Which again makes me understand the American need for the 2nd amendment.

[steep ferry]

That is an overly simplified understanding of a democracy.

[wet plinth]

......Yes. It's difficult to vote out popular people. 🤔

As problems go, that's pretty far down the list.

There are big flaws with the US' political system. I agree, the US probably needs to improve that before people will have more faith in the government. And if there are a lot of people who own guns because they don't have faith in the idea of government, then I imagine a system that gives people more faith in government will have a big effect on the perceived need for gun ownership. But I still take the view that gun ownership doesn't really have a positive effect on people's relationship with government even now.

[wet plinth]

I mean, of course it is. It's just a one line description. But it is a basic principle by which most democracies work.

[low sail]

Putin´s popularity is irrelevant to the point, the point was even if a vote was successfully passed to get him out of office, he likely would not let it happen.

Also the politician problem is not unique to America, I don´t know much about the rest of the world, but I can tell you that at least in Denmark the politics have gone in only one direction for the past 20+ years regardless of who had the majority support.

I also would not want more guns on the streets of Denmark, since quite frankly the costs to establishing such an environment, would far outweigh the benefits, but America has already paid said costs, and it would be far more costly to remove the majority of guns from them again. Thus I believe it is a far better solution to instead make changes that make gun usage as efficient as possible, rather than outright remove them.

[steep ferry]

US is founded on the inherent mistrust of people in power abusing said power aka the government

[wet plinth]

It's very difficult to talk about hypothetical situations where only one thing changes, because there are always knock on effects when you change something. Right now, sure, maybe Putin has a lot of allies amongst powerful people, enough to protect against a coup by regular people. But if Putin loses the support of the regular people, it is quite likely that he would also lose the support of those powerful current allies for the same reasons, and he would then be unable to remain in power.

But the same is true of most democratic leaders. A rebellion against Biden or Sunak right now by regular people wouldn't succeed either. I don't think there is an interesting point there.

Removing guns from the US is going to take a long time, and I've said at least once in this discussion already that I think it will require major social changes to happen first. But I still think it's a good thing to aim for, long term.

[wet plinth]

Yes, but I would argue that a good chunk of that mistrust is unfounded. I would also argue that that mistrust prevents the system improving, because it prevents them engaging with the system to try and make it better.

[low sail]

Fair enough.

Also yes I believe in a vacuum, if you have a society with no guns and a society with guns, we two can at least agree that no guns would be better.

[tepid arch]

lol the failed state conversation.
That's the human violence box.

[kindred vortex]

@wet plinth @steep ferry if you can't defend yourself from someone that is telling you what to think do and say and it's in direct conflict with your soul and having no means to right the injustice have by definition become a slave. You no longer have freedom of any kind. other than thoughts in your mind that you don't dare share

[kindred vortex]

And at some point the ones with guns would want something of yours and would take by force because whose gonna stop them

I'm not saying it's right

[low sail]

Which is why I said in a vacuum, I am well aware that might makes right, and therefor you need to be able to protect yourself to have any effective rights.

[kindred vortex]

I'm just saying history proves this over and over. I hate it it's disgusting but it's life

So if it's life I'd rather be able to pull a weapon when needed

[wet plinth]

I think you've added in a lot of things there that don't necessarily follow from not owning guns. Owning guns isn't the only way to protect yourself, you can also get other people to protect you. Like the government, and the police. If you make a good agreement with them, and agree to give them the power to protect you only as long as they use it responsibly, then you rescind it if there are ever any problems.

Society works because we share the jobs, which means we don't all have to do everything ourselves. I think that when there's a problem with someone in that society not doing their job right, the best solution is to band together with everyone else to combat that, not retreat back to doing everything yourself. Because it's a lot harder to solve problems on your own than it is to do it with others.

[kindred vortex]

And don't please say why do you need an assault weapon. EVERY SINGLE THING USED in the intent of killing another is an assault weapon. If itt not guns it's what came next nuclear weapons. There will always be something even when it's down to rocks

[wet plinth]

Guns are an individual's attempt to solve a problem. There are other ways of solving it, involving working with others. That's the lesson the US needs to learn, maybe.

[kindred vortex]

You said it your self as long as they use it responsibly. How you gonna stop then if they do? No we aren't taking your words today. You do what I say there is no more voting ! Then what ?

[wet plinth]

Then you get together with the rest of society who is experiencing the exact same problem that you are, which gives you more power than the person who is saying those things, and you stop that person doing that.

[kindred vortex]

We could have taken over pretty much everything after ww2 didn't we rebuilt it and gave it back. You're welcome

[wet plinth]

When did this become a conversation about US foreign policy?

[kindred vortex]

Unless it's a bomb or gun or knife or rock or poison gas or a car and on and on

[kindred vortex]

Exactly it starts right there with the individuals right to have or not have one up to them

It's giant circle. What they say the 5 degrees of Kevin bacon

[low sail]

Well it is not like it was done for free, the Marshall-plan was a major boon to the US economy, and it was also contingent on tying the global currency exchange to the American dollar.

[kindred vortex]

Everything comes down to this. Pete t smart to get dialogue on this because it's all encompassing. It comes down to your for guns or not there is no well they can and they can't. Because that is a for argument because they exist.

[wet plinth]

🤨
If you have somehow got yourself into a situation in a democratic country, where all of the police and army media and government officials and judiciary and anyone else with any power are all conspiring together to subjugate everyone else, then you've made a lot of problems with your democratic choices.

Either way, you band together with the majority that want a functioning democracy and withdraw the power you have given those others.

If you're not in the majority, then you will have to work with some people you disagree with about some things. Such is life in a democratic society.

[kindred vortex]

And if they exist I want one because you are not going to force your will on me without a fight and we're back to the state level hence this republic and round and around WWE gp

[wet plinth]

Why do we have to fight if we disagree? Can't we just talk instead and decide stuff democratically?

Talking is better for both of us.

[kindred vortex]

We do that is called civility

[wet plinth]

Then why do you need a gun for that?

[kindred vortex]

But if that's over and you're forcing uyour view of society on me and it tears my soul into just having to along then yeah I want a gun I may not win but I'll determine the when and where not someone like Kim Jung+un the supreme leader
My

[steep ferry]

It's not a conversation about a failed state. It's solving the perceived problem with these things in consideration

[kindred vortex]

Bottom line come take it and you'd better be able to back yourself up. Just don't use a weapon that'd defeat the purpose

You cannot stand why because I decide what happens.

[low sail]

@wet plinth I believe this comes down to why you also said, removing guns would be a long and gradual change.

Guns are clearly deeply rooted in this mans identity, does not matter if you agree with it or not, you won´t be able to convince him or people like him to give them up.

Guns here clearly are an insurance, and as long as you believe you need to be insured against something, that is really the only reason you need to do it.

[kindred vortex]

I'm just dsykng@kindred vortex I'm sure we have military bases there with NATO what is their function?

[wet plinth]

That does kinda come across like you're only willing to play fair as long as you get your way. I would argue that you have to accept that sometimes you're not going to get your own way, but that that is still an acceptable compromise to enjoy the benefits of society.

[kindred vortex]

That is not the duty of the federal government p q last 30 years haand I 200000000000 % agree with you on compromise and what one can and cannot live with that was the whole point of w republic
Just cause I have a gun doesn't mean I want to use it. Ot that I'll only do what i want when I've spent 2 hours relaying how that's exactly why I own a gun to begin with

It's all fun and games till you get punched in the mouth. That's a Tyson quote.

[karmic atlas]

Oh yea I completely agree with that, I am staunchly opposed to supporting other countries while we have major issues here that need to be tackled.

[karmic atlas]

I would beg to differ when it came to my life. I'd rather not be defenseless or rely on others for defense. That is where other people have control over you.

[karmic atlas]

Why should something that isn't morally wrong be discouraged?

[wet plinth]

You're not worried by the fact that literally anyone you meet could kill you? That doesn't feel like other people having control over you?

[marsh python]

Restricting guns to a few criminals is vastly different than the situation in America. Things sound good on paper but when statistics of gun violence isn't reported except in skewed ways, ideas are pushed that doesn't reflect reality. Its a shame that each individual has to research themselves or trust independent journalism to alert the public to research. We can just go over a single city and start to understand the problem. The depth of the problem becomes how many cities are out there. https://home.chicagopolice.org/wp-content/uploads/CompStat-Public-2023-Year-End-1.pdf

[low sail]

Because while not morally wrong, if done carelessly it is harmful to society, think of it like this, society is much like a pocket watch, if you start randomly removing cogs in the watch, it will stop working, in the same vein, if people start dying left and right you cannot rely on them to preform their duties, and that stops society from working.

A more obvious case of this could be charity.

Charity is I think we can both agree is a moral good, you give to others to improve their lives.

But if you were to use that charity to give to a person, so that, that person can solve a problem they are having, for an extended period of time, then they do not learn how to overcome that problem on their own, and you would have hurt them in the long run, if you ever decide to stop supporting them.

This is to say that even things that are moral, when used poorly can be harmful.

[marsh python]

Wait. Reading this is like logical spaghetti. Are you saying that charity is attached to morals but killing children is not?

[low sail]

I don´t see how we ever got to killing children unless there is something that flew way over my head.

The conversation as I understand it was .

1. A claim was made that American rights was god given.
2. I made a counter claim based on the first amendment.
3. Conversation went to how my morals were dictated by an innate design by god in humans.
4. I counter claimed this by saying my moral compass is not dictated by God, since I hold morals that are contrary to the 10 commandments.
5. the comparison between charity and murder was made only to illustrate how, good intentions can still harm. Since as I understand it, it was postulated that moral things cannot be bad

it skips a bit back and forth but, this is what I understand to be the subject of the conversation, never have I mentioned children, nor the killing of them.

[marsh python]

I am saying that I do not believe the taking of another life is morally wrong

This is a statement of taking of another life. This includes animals, insects, plants and humans. Including humans includes men, women and children. I brought up children as being inclusive in the statement and asked if that is what you actually mean. There are logical conclusions to saying something isn't morally wrong.

Its totally possible that I am not understanding your position which is why I asked. People tend to get squeamish when faced with drawing their logic out to its final conclusions but it may be reading your reasoning wrong or you may have not actually drawn that logic out yourself, hence the question.

[low sail]

Taking a life of another not being morally wrong.

This might be to much of a blanket statement so I am going to try and reformulate myself.

Taking another life can be justified and if so it is not immoral.

To me taking another life is ideally done, in order to further a purpose, in other words it is only done when you stand to gain from it. To me doing something to improve upon your own situation is never inherently morally wrong, it is just something you do, when you value your wellbeing, or the wellbeing of those you care about, more than the life being taken.

So if you want to kill a child in the context, no you are not morally wrong, provided you can give a reason as to why you gain from it, and that said gain is greater than the loss you take by killing said child.

That being said while killing is not immoral, I don´t think I can say it is moral either it is simply, sometimes, necessary.

If you have a better way to formulate that I would like to see, because I think I'm really bad at explaining this particular position without sounding, at least somewhat crazy.

[marsh python]

Ok. So your fine with killing a child as long as you gain satisfaction from it (as a logical conclusion). I mean the gain of satisfaction is not immoral if that is the reason to kill a child and someone else has to prove that something else is greater than the loss of killing the child if your saying that it is no real loss.

Its not how you explain the particular position, its the particular position of killing children is not morally wrong that you actually have problems with trying to justify within some made up framework.

You notice how I frame it as personal because its a personal belief that people (including you) can overcome morality of killing children. As long as you can say "Anyone, including me, can kill any child, including my own, because killing is not immoral and because of X" (in this case "what is gained by the person, including me", I suppose) you should have no problems explaining your position. I, on the outside, see that exact particular problem with that particular position that no one wants to claim.

[low sail]

I think some things may have been conflated.

1. To me a moral is merely an opinion one individual can have in a given situation.

2. Acting morally does not mean you cannot be punished for your actions

So let´s say you kill a child for gratification, I will be honest I thought more materialistic when I made the statement, I forgot some people actually get satisfaction from harming people weaker than themselves.

This can be your own justification of the action, I am not going to say that gain is too little if it satisfies you.

But what I am going to say is that even if, I don´t personally know or care even a smidgen about the child, you still need to be punished for it in the interest of society.

So in short even if it is not immoral to do this action, under the circumstances, it is still in society´s best interest to condemn you for it, and from a protection standpoint, maybe even an ethical imperative.

[marsh python]

The difference of not killing because it will be punished and the difference in not killing because its immoral is set aside in morality discussion. Only talking about the moral aspect, not the actions because of consequences aspect, is what I am asking about.

Your saying that you are totally fine to kill children if you gain something from it ( apart from society and consequences, drawing out what was said so far to its logical conclusion). Is that about correct?

[low sail]

In theory, I think you can make stakes high enough that I would say yes it is worth it to kill a child without feeling morally guilty, but said stakes would have to be stupidly high.

Think kill this child or the world ends, that kind of high.

But can I say for sure I would ever do so practically, no, I´ve never killed someone else I am just arguing what I have observed, that people seem to be okay with.

an example would be the thousands, perhaps millions of starving Africans, we could fix that, it would be outrageously expensive but we could fix it. We don´t and as a result ever second somebody down there dies a sad and preventable death.

So I can only conclude that life only holds value when it is valuable to you, and if something is not valuable then why do you care if someone steals it.

This again could be poorly stated but it is me trying to explain that in my experience, when people have the choice between selfless or selfish actions they will weigh towards selfish, and as such life is only as valuable as others give it meaning.

[hollow sand]

i feel this might of gone off topic a bit

[low sail]

most definitely

[hollow sand]

what side of this debate do you stand?

[low sail]

I´ve stated my opinion before, but if I had to give you a condensed version.

I believe that in a vacuum a society without guns would be better.

But since guns are as rooted as they are in the culture of the North American continent, it is a fools errand to try and get rid of them.

So what I would like done is instead is introduce measures to ensure that guns cause as little collateral damage as possible.

[marsh python]

Ya, I have been trying to keep responses short. My answer to framing selfishness as what gives value to life is bunk because selfishness is, at the core, immoral (and complained about plenty especially concerning the rich).

[hollow sand]

im sure youve heard this all before but im one of those people who live in europe and dont understand the position of guns for many people in north america

but im sure your right that because so many people are so pro guns that removal of them from society would be impossible

[marsh python]

I see it as not moving guns up the tech ladder so eventually all illegal guns will eventually disappear along with cartels pushing guns through the border as being impossible to keep illegal guns from being pervasive which is the real problems that controls the arena of reality in America (illegal guns first).

[hollow sand]

you talk of illegal guns being the problem (correct me if im wrong) but in many states you can legally obtain automatic weapons, while these illegal guns take many lives so do the legal ones

[marsh python]

Right. That is statistics. Legal guns save lives as well. Not reported but that is statistics as well. Take away legal guns and only illegal guns are left.

[low sail]

I also believe we had that one before, and while I think that is a good idea to take things for other reasons than crime prevention.

It probably won´t do much about illegal guns since, as said previously guns are not a very complicated technology, as long as you have a cylindrical container that can take the explosion of gunpowder and a firing mechanism, you have an effective killing tools, so criminals would simply take the parts you compromise and make replacements for them.

[marsh python]

Take away illegal guns and we can talk.

[hollow sand]

how do legal guns save lives

[marsh python]

That would be a cat and mouse tech war seen on many other fronts. A way better game than keeping on with manufacturing non-tech and stay in the same place we are now.

[marsh python]

Self defense and defense of others. Is this a serious question?

[low sail]

Let´s say you are a in a store and witness the owner being robbed, and the situation is about to escalate to the store owner losing his life, If you are carrying a gun, you can intervene and attempt to prevent said escalation from happening, saving the store owners life.

Of course this could result in the death of the robber, but you did save the store owners life, it is up to you if that is worth it

[hollow sand]

so if i were to kill someone in defense of someone else i would kill the perpetrator

that leaves the decision of who to live and who to to die in the hands of the average citizen

[marsh python]

You mean if you kill a perpetrator trying to kill a victim, you save the life of the victim.

[low sail]

Yes, and that would be part of the premise of this thread.
Is that acceptable and if so, when is it acceptable?

[marsh python]

When there is a victim.

[hollow sand]

so is it acceptable to kill an unarmed robber

[marsh python]

You mean for police or for citizens? Same answer to both and that answer is found in court.

[hollow sand]

bit late once their dead

what happens if they were stealing to feed their family

[low sail]

To me, if that unarmed robber is about to kill someone, then yes, the life of the victim is more important that the perpetrator.

If not then no, just incapacitate him with non-lethal force

[marsh python]

So your saying that there are statistics that show unarmed robber deaths by legal guns or something?

[hollow sand]

the part of unarmed implies that they are not about to kill anyone

[marsh python]

What if someone stealing to feed their family is caught in the middle, panics and kills the person who caught them? Bit late once they are dead but there is court for that.

[hollow sand]

^

[marsh python]

Your the one saying "what if". If you don't like the game, don't play.

[hollow sand]

what do you mean 'dont play'

[marsh python]

Pulling hypotheticals out.

Court for someone charged with killing someone else implies its a bit late. Killing can happen at any time during almost any perpetrator situation with almost any object, creating a crime statistic. You can't throw in a gun as the main object of attention involving hypothetical situations when crime is the situation that death occurs most from (apart from accidents). Its a game. Reality is far different than a bunch of unarmed robbers being gunned down by legal carry citizens (or police for that matter).

[karmic atlas]

Anybody you meet could kill you regardless of guns. Murder isn't only an issue in the United States, or countries with high gun ownership like switzerland.

[karmic atlas]

Well the charity example, giving them the act of charity isn't harmful, the type of charity you give is harmful. It would be charitable to help them get out of that situation responsibly by ensuring they have the skills to keep going. I do see the point you are trying to make though. But if murder can be harmful to societies even though in your opinion it is moral and shouldn't be allowed, do you hold the same belief for charity then?

Also who is to say that your morals are morally correct? Outside of religion, morals are subjective. There is no moral law given outside of religion.

[karmic atlas]

Wait, wait, wait. So your idea of morality is if you helps you it's moral. If it doesn't it's amoral? So in your opinion robbery would be moral, rape would be moral? Both of those the criminal stands to gain something where it is monetary or physical pleasure.

Based on your last two sentences, I think what you are trying to say, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that anything can be justified and used for a moral reason, so you don't think anything should be considered amoral, unless there is just nothing anyone would gain from it, correct?

[karmic atlas]

Automatic weapons are almost impossible to obtain for a normal person legally. It isn't impossible, but it is stupidly long of a process. (Again this is going about it legally) It is much easier to obtain automatic weapons illegally, even if you have no ill-intent with the firearm. Despite this though, I don't think something should be banned just because people use them for crimes. With this logic cars, knives, ropes, hammers, etc. could all justifiably be banned. We are already seeing this process happen in the UK with them starting to ban types of knives now since they banned guns machetes took over as the major weapon choice.

[low sail]

As I said in a later post, taking a life being moral was a wrong way to put it, it is just not immoral, unless that creates a conundrum, in which case I don´t think I have a way to properly categorize the scenario.

As for charity, morals are about intent, I don´t think you ever aim to cause harm with charity intentionally, because if you did it would no longer be charity, so then even if you do cause harm, you did so with good intentions, and you would have acted morally I think?

Also I would never be arrogant enough to claim my morals are absolute, even God in my opinion does not hold the absolute moral truth, sure he can punish you if you don´t subscribe to his version of morality, but to me that does not in any way shape or form indicate a moral superiority.

[low sail]

I think this is somewhat accurate, but again just because something is moral to you does not mean that others cannot disagree with it and be punitive towards you.

[karmic atlas]

So would you agree that talking about morals is pointless as morality really has no meaning? If it is just subjective then why even talk about it?

[low sail]

To explore the world, see if we can come to a solution of what we wish the world or failing short of that, at least what kind of person we wish to be when we act in it.

I admit my current view is rather cynical at best, and I would like it to change, I just have yet to see any real behavior, that suggests to me that I´m wrong.

[karmic atlas]

But if there is no moral truth, the morals are irrelevant, it is just opinions. If I believe for say kidnapping is morally right, and you are to say kidnapping is morally wrong. That means nothing as there is no moral standard. It is just to say I believe kidnapping is right or wrong. Moral inherently means goodness, how can we have morals if there is no defined goodness.

Discussing morals would be such as discussing art. There is no objective truth to it. Even if the masses hold one opinion that doesn't make it subjectively true. I think subjective morals inherently aren't related to morality at all as morals require a moral law.

[low sail]

Do you consider keeping slaves moral?
Because through out human history there have been many societies which used slavery, which means many societies created what they considered to be moral laws, that imposed slavery upon a range of different people.

In the American case contrary to popular belief Europeans did not just go down with a net and catch a lot of black people.

No they went down to Africa with clothing, porcelain and pearls, which they then bartered to African chieftains in exchange for manpower, because slavery was already common place in Africa, which they then sold to the Americas for sugar, coffee and rum, then they went back to Europe and did it all again.

This was considered perfectly normal and moral, with some even using the bible as justification for the behavior.

So yes morals are just opinions, they are mostly shaped by the societies we live in, but this does not make them useless.

As you said earlier morals are what we consider inherent goodness, so when confronted with a moral view opposite our own, we gain the chance for introspection, and introspection can lead to growth, which is very valuable.

[karmic atlas]

I personally do no consider keeping slaves moral because the bible considers it amoral. If humans make laws defining slavery as legal that doesn't make it moral (which I think you'd agree with) The part about people using the bible as justification for slavery doesn't mean much to me as people misrepresent the bible all the time. One of the biggest events in the bible is Exodus where God delivers the Israelites from slavery.

If morals are subjective, how could I have my opinion changed on it. That would imply there is evidence going against your opinion which leads to the conclusion there must be a fact or there is a logical path that would lead to one answer.

Also by moral law I mean outside of human laws. A law in the sense of natural laws like gravity and such.

I do not hold the belief that humans can decide what is moral or immoral.

[low sail]

I can think of a very limited circumstance where slavery might be somewhat moral, but even then there are better alternatives.

If you were to offer a homeless person, to be your personal servant for life, in exchange for food, water and shelter. You would not be allowed to intentionally cause this person harm, but said person would not be allowed to disobey your commands outside of those that are negotiated to be exceptions with the person, and the contact is only ever to affect the two of you, and expires after a negotiated duration.

While I think charity and probably other solutions to this exist and are better, if this was the only option I think the offer is at least reasonable, given that the person in question would need to agree to it.

As for changing moral opinions, I for one have shared a very unpopular opinion on here, and gotten feedback for it, which has made me realize that at the very least my conclusions are incomplete, which means even if I don´t change the core of my belief due to this, at the very least I will hopefully be able to gain some nuance, and possibly learn to express the opinion better

[soft lava]

120 per 100 capita but in that 100capita only 10 people actually own more than 1 firearm and 2 out of that ten have more than 20 in there collection so that per capita bullshit is just that bullshit

[soft lava]

Take a long hard look into the felons with fire arm law it doesn’t just cover felons It covers people who have mental health issues if you ever have to visit a psyche ward because your having suicidal thoughts the minute you check yourself in and sign voluntary consent to be admitted you’ve given up your rights to firearms but because we have hippa laws which prevent drs from sharing any of your medical records with the government they have no way of stopping said person from lying on background forms

[low sail]

Well to me that while this does sound stupid, that is a problem with this specific legislation, but I don´t believe that excludes the possibility of coming up with other legislation on the area, which is more reasonable. You could argue it as a case of proof that law markers are trying to infringe on your 2nd amendment rights, but that is still a separate issue, from being able to create a law that actually does what you want it to, and reduce the number of actual people that have guns but should not have them.

[soft lava]

And in what world has any government ever proven to actually give a damn about its people enough to be trusted

[wet plinth]

Our world, in many countries, for large periods of time.

[soft lava]

It never lasts power corrupts

[soft lava]

It’s a law that could be better but we have privacy laws that prevent them from being better

[wet plinth]

That's not true at all. Most people you meet can't kill you. But the particularly stark contrast is not just whether it's possible, but how easy it is to murder someone in countries with such a high gun ownership rate, compared to other places.

[wet plinth]

Hence things like democracy and term limits, where the power remains with the people, and is loaned to others for short periods of time.

[soft lava]

When are people going to understand that the United States isn’t a democracy it’s a democratic republic there is a difference go back to school And so long as the United States has a two party system controlling the government the vote you make never really counts

Career politicians will never allow term limits so long as idiots continue voting for them because they say they are a democrat/republican

[wet plinth]

I agree. The US' political system isn't great. It can definitely be improved, to produce better governments than it currently does. But I don't think gun ownership levels are helping with that.

[soft lava]

Gun ownerships have nothing to with it

[wet plinth]

I think it's quite possibly connected. I think there may well be people who falsely view gun ownership as protecting them from bad governments, and who therefore think that they don't need to do anything else to protect themselves from bad governments.

[soft lava]

Except the vast majority of gun owners are the ones seeking to enact term limits on all government posistions

Visit a gun and knife convention and I promise you will see a booth setup by people there because the belief of more control on the government by the people and not the government on the people is supported by legal gun owners

Gang violence accounts for most of our gun violence and those guns are not legally purchased

🦗 🦗 🦗 🦗

[wet plinth]

That doesn't contradict what I said, but good for them, I guess.

[wet plinth]

Do you have a reliable source for that?

We've made the point many times in this thread that having guns be so widespread legally, makes it easier for guns to be obtained illegally as well.

[soft lava]

Look up gang violence trends based on cities then compare those cities to gun control measures and u will see that those cities with stricter gun control have more gun violence generally associated with gang violence

Chicago , New York

It’s a long list gangs and drugs are the issue that needs corrected

Violent crimes increase with the drug epidemic

[wet plinth]

What is your point you're trying to make by mentioning that? To me, that says that cities with high rates of gun violence associated with gangs have generally implemented stricter gun controls in an attempt to improve things.

[soft lava]

And it’s failed because it’s not the root cause of the problem if stricter gun policies worked these places would be a utopia not have the highest crime rates

[wet plinth]

But you would accept, I assume, that gang-related gun violence isn't caused by gun controls?

So all it really means is that gun control apparently can't solve the problem on its own.

[soft lava]

Gun control isn’t the problem

Overpopulation

Drugs

[wet plinth]

Cultural attitudes to other people?

[soft lava]

A society that wants to defund the police then say it’s the polices job to protect the population

[soft lava]

Absolutely

Unwillingness to accept that people are entitled to their beliefs and unwillingness to accept that your beliefs do not give you the right to strip me of my beliefs

[stiff wasp]

Do you think right now, there are people who legally own guns but shouldn't be allowed to?

[soft lava]

Probably but that doesn’t mean that no one should

There are also people who can’t own guns legally who should be allowed to

The system isn’t perfect but irrational measures won’t fix it

[stiff wasp]

Even in the UK with it's super strict gun laws, people are allowed to legally own guns. Saying gun control advocates want to take all guns is a strawman

Basically the point of gun control is to keep legal guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have guns. I literally don't see how anyone could have an issue with that

[soft lava]

The issue stems from the fact that this country was built on the premises that the government has no right to restrict that right if I want to own a fully automatic gun and I can afford to buy the ammo to shoot it it’s my unalienable right to do so that said I can’t afford to feed to shoot said firearm therefore I don’t own one

If you don’t want to own a gun that’s your right

And your right doesn’t supersede my right

And vice versa

If me giving up my guns makes you feel safer but makes me feel less safe it’s accomplished nothing

[stiff wasp]

Another strawman, at least I hope you are a responsible gun owner

[soft lava]

Yes I am and my children are taught proper gun safety

[stiff wasp]

But there already are gun control restrictions you agree with right. Violent criminals out on parole is the example I use shouldn't be allowed to own a gun right? We infringing on that right?

Would performing a background check infringe on the right?

[soft lava]

We have background checks if you choose to break the law you give up those rights consequences for your actions and there is a system in place to legally get your rights back

It’s not an easy system to go through to get those rights back it’s also very expensive

[stiff wasp]

Right so we can agree on some kind of basic universal background check, probably focusing on criminals and violent offenders?

[soft lava]

And we already have that system in place

[stiff wasp]

What mandatory gun safety training requirements for gun owners?

[soft lava]

That’s a slippery slope yes everyone should have basic gun safety training and for a long time it was taught at home by responsible parents and it was also taught in schools it’s also a requirement in most states in order to obtain a hunting license it’s called hunters safety

The problem with mandatory is it becomes a financial deterrent

I promise you that it’s hard to find a gun dealer that if your honest and say hey this is my first gun that won’t point you in the direction of gun safety course and if it’s not a corporate store but a locally owned gun store especially one with a range most of those folks will take the time to give you that training free of charge

[stiff wasp]

Yeah I feel like most gun regulation really misses the mark

But there's a ton of common sense stuff that any responsible gun owner already does that needs to be added

[soft lava]

That’s the problem tho the powers at be don’t want to use common sense

[stiff wasp]

The focus on like the cosmetic features of guns are like really really dumb

[soft lava]

It is dumb

So is the argument of why do you need 30 rds

Most self defense cases happen at less than 15 feet and people still manage to miss with multiple shots including police officers federal agency representatives and military personnel

[low sail]

Well then change the privacy laws, or add an amendment to them, allowing a person to share their information with another person, under consent, and then regulate what the shared to party can do with the information.

[peak pendant]

As per the posters logic chart, the conversation ends in the United States at the 2nd Amendment. "shall not be infringed" Humans will always find a way to harm one another. Period End Stop. However until we get superpowers we only have two avenues of protecting our liberty our vote, which clearly is now suspect, and the ability to enforce that vote through modern mans most versatile defense weapon to date a firearm. Any discussion on weapons in general and how bad people use them is not a discussion on the weapon it is a discussion on how did that person find themselves in such a dire psychosis that they needed to kill or harm another. Where did we fail in the regard of society, not which tools do we have.

[wet plinth]

The point that has been raised a few times in this discussion in response to "humans will cause harm even without guns" is that guns make it much easier to cause much greater harm. Killing someone becomes a split-second decision instead of a sustained effort, which logically seems like it would result in more deaths because people without guns have time to reconsider a bad split-second decision.

The stats show that the US, where gun ownership is at an incredibly high level, has a murder rate much higher than that in European countries. In fact, the US murder rate is higher by almost the exact number of murders as the number of murders carried out with guns. If none of that is to do with the availability of guns, then that would mean that the people in the USA are just incredibly violent in general compared to other western countries. Is that effectively what you're saying your opinion is?

Do you think that gun ownership is successful in stopping the US government from doing bad things at the moment? Also, how would we tell the difference between a bunch of citizens with guns trying to take on an unjust government, and a bunch of citizens with guns trying to take on a just government that they simply didn't want?

[peak pendant]

Most stats you refer to are gun death stats and those are specifically skewed to the gun control lobby, so the entire argument is kinda reduced to an elaborate straw man argument. When it comes to the defense of liberty I guess that would come down to who controls the narrative and who wins... Winner tells the story.

[wet plinth]

I don't understand. What part of the murder stats are skewed? Have the stats collectors in the US invented a ton of murders involving guns?

[peak pendant]

most stats are skewed by saying gun related deaths... considering a significant percentage are accidents and suicides it dramatically reduces the "murder" rate.

[wet plinth]

But the totals for deaths are also much higher. So are the totals invented, or are there actually more murders, accidents and suicides in the US?

[soft lava]

If your heart and mind is set on suicide than weather you have a gun or not doesn’t change the outcome and since suicide is considered murder and you can be tried for attempted murder therefore it is added to the gun related stats when looking at murder rates therefore it’s a skewed number and I would also ask what are the gang related violent offenses in other country’s

[peak pendant]

that is actually unknown due to reporting agencies in many European countries are not reported the same.... having said that it would make sense as we are a integrated society with much more diverse population, and much more social and economic pressure, (perspectival) and a much more volatile emotional make up. .... and none of that changes that our founding fathers made sure to allow its citizens to have the ability to resist Tyranny.

[half isle]

wild subject.. i didnt read everything maybe this has been discussed or is broad: what is a gun? a pistol, a rifle, an icbm, a plane?

since their inception they seem to have been used most to tip the scales of economics , resources etc its hard not to think of guns on a global scale , like how they seem to be some kind of great equalizer and or oppressor re: inequality or scarcity ... i dont begin know how small arms should be dealt with at this point

[soft lava]

A gun by definition is very broad

.
a weapon incorporating a metal tube from which bullets, shells, or other missiles are propelled by explosive force, typically making a characteristic loud, sharp noise.

That’s first definition on google

So a mortar by that definition would be a gun

RPG

Ad15

Ar 15

Stupid fat fingers

Pistol

[half isle]

government AND culture absolutely have to be involved, but I feel like they always have been and always will. why are guns so attractive to young men? is it knowing that those that have security and wealth probably obtained these things through the operation of guns somewhere in the chain

[soft lava]

I grew up with guns and it’s fun to get together with family and friends and shoot it becomes a competition

[half isle]

even if it wasnt themselves personally, complicity is a sinch

thats cool i think im thinking about the original questions at the beginning that i read

it is fun to shoot them ya but i think the question is if they are a problem

and if so what about it

[soft lava]

Guns aren’t the problem our gun violence here stems a lot from gangs in inner cities that the law can not do anything about mass shootings which are generally done by people who have psychological issues and our society instead of trying to help those people solve their inner issues they drug them and slap a bandaid on it and send them back into society

And now we pander to those issues we have schools putting litter boxes in bathrooms because a kid wants to say they’re a cat

[stiff wasp]

One of these days I'm going to read up on some an-cap arguments for private nuke ownership and start arguing for that stance

[half isle]

haha

[soft lava]

If you can afford one go for it lol

[wet plinth]

If you're asking about gang culture in Europe, then that's a very complicated question and the answer varies from country to country. In the UK, the estimates seem to be that gangs are about a third as common as they are in the US. I would guess that that figure reflects the lack of mainstream social support available in the US, which causes people to turn to other groups.

But regarding suicide numbers, gun suicides don't seem to be included in the gun murder stats that I've seen. But the US comes out worse on all the stats anyway. The US has a higher suicide rate, higher gun violence rate, and much higher murder rate than most European countries. So it's not about the balance of reporting the figures. Maybe gangs are something to do with the difference, but that in itself points to cultural issues.

[soft lava]

Culture issue isn’t a gun issue

Which is a major point

[wet plinth]

I would really question whether guns have any impact whatsoever on the US population's ability to resist tyranny. The populace isn't going to be able to resist the US army if it decides it wants to make them do things, and when it comes to resisting the government itself that just happens by refusing to cooperate with it. I don't see what effect owning a gun has in that respect.

[wet plinth]

Guns are a part of the culture though. So even if they aren't the sole or most significant cause of the rate of violence, they are still a part of it.

[soft lava]

So our military is sworn to protect the constitution and the people not the government if the people decide to fight the government the military at most underlying levels won’t support the government

[wet plinth]

Well, if that's true then that's another reason why an armed citizenry is unnecessary.

[soft lava]

If our government would focus on beating the gangs on the social lvl then that violence would disappear

[soft lava]

The armed citizenry is also a part of why the us has never been invaded the cost to get troops here along with having to suppress a well armed population makes it not cost effective

[wet plinth]

That could be true. I'm not going to argue that trying to solve the social problems that drive gang culture wouldn't be a good thing.

[soft lava]

Harsher penalties on gang associated violence and on drugs if the drug problem becomes smaller then by transitive nature so will gang violence and random acts of violence by drug addicts trying to steal stuff from peoples homes to support their fixes

[wet plinth]

I think it's very difficult to claim there is evidence that gun ownership deters invasion. The US sits on a big island thousands of miles away from anywhere that isn't Mexico or Canada, which makes invasion by anyone else unfeasible. But Mexico has invaded the US several times.

[soft lava]

Banning guns in the short by the numbers looks logical if you just see the numbers if you look at the broad picture it doesn’t do anything to solve the underlying issues

[half isle]

gangs in inner cities the law cant do anything about seems to have been pretty evident and seems to stretch far beyond inner cities... When you say harsher penalties are you refering to them having been loosened and the inability of many states to warehouse people convicted of crimes? I dont see this working, hasnt it been tried and failed ? I feel like Guns and ammo are such a core currency, kind of like drugs that its hard for me to be hopeful for the problem to get better..

[half isle]

Maybe ive lost my focus or maybe not, Maybe Im trying to say that guns and ammo seem far too profitable to stop making, selling and maybe using, and far too important to peoples safety now that there are so many of them in circulation. Im not just thinking about the us. I feel like people will make them anyway now that they're so abundant. The companies that make them dont want to give up their influence/profit, like powerful gangs and pharma dont want drugs to stop being used. Even when the demand gets lower, it gets created. The governments do seem too muddied up to address these problems, and complicity/corruption as usual . Pretty Bleak, imo. I also feel like any drastic reform electorally or in the laws would freak alot of people out of their much cherished comfort zones. Id love to be convinced otherwise.

[karmic atlas]

Anybody CAN kill you, but that doesn't mean anybody could kill you. Reasoning: You don't know the abilities of the other person, outside of other weapons it comes down to overall strength, weight, the technique of fighting, and speed. You can't judge all of those by just looking at a person, you can try and make a prediction based on physical appearance, but that would be a prideful thing to do; as the saying goes "Don't judge a book by its cover"

Now I agree, guns do make it easier to murder someone than say a knife, you can do it from much further, through some objects, they are fast, etc. Now think about it this way, a woman is out walking in the UK and a man tries to assault her with a knife. In the UK she'd likely have very little to defend herself as she'd have to rely on biology, which doesn't work to her advantage. Now let's say she has a knife, well is she going to want to get that violent to stab someone with a knife, keep in mind stabbing them isn't likely to kill them, so you'd have to stab them while fighting/wrestling with them. Much more gruesome and brutal, not to mention traumatizing to live through, especially for the victim. Now let's say she has a gun, well now the balance of power is in her hands if she is properly trained and situationally aware. When guns are involved it is decided by a few things: 1. Who has the most training and repetition 2. Who has the gun on target first 3. Who is willing to fire first

Guns make the game a whole lot more even, leaving it up to training and practice rather than mostly body weight and strength

(Cars are just as easy to kill someone with as a gun, just mow through a crowd with a car and boom, mass casualties.)

[wet plinth]

There's a good point about knives in there. There is no real point in most people carrying a knife in the UK, because it just makes the scenario more dangerous than it needs to be unless you're highly trained in using it to the point where it's likely to give you an overwhelming advantage. Also it would be illegal in most cases, but that's besides the point.

Unless the attacker is a knife expert, there is no easy way to take someone down quickly and reliably with a knife in the same way that you can with a gun. Using a knife or another weapon is therefore much more dangerous for the attacker because the longer the attack goes on the more likely they are to be caught. A victim of a knife attack is also almost certainly going to be able to shout or scream for a fair amount of time before you can silence them. And of course in the modern day they're going to spread DNA evidence everywhere in the process. So that's a big difference that makes knives much less likely to be used in an attack involving them.

There's also the possibility of just running if you see someone with a knife, which doesn't exist in the same way with a gun.

Guns just make the outcome more random. Even with training and practice, you still lose if the other person has their gun out first. It is fundamentally a lot less safe for everyone if guns are present.

[karmic atlas]

I mean, guns in the United States are used more times successfully to defend one's self from harm than used in an actual assault. Just the fact that the perpetrators see a firearm automatically escalates the situation in their mind, most people take off running, freak out, duck, etc.

I mean, if you are being held with the guy aiming directly at you demanding something, yea you aren't doing anything about it, but how do you even get in that situation in the first place if you are being situationally aware? Not saying it is impossible, but extremely unlikely that would occur.

Knives would give you more time to run, if they are coming at you from a distance, kind of the opposite with guns. Knives, at least for any criminal with common sense, would be concealed until you are right on your target. At that point there is nothing they can do besides fight back, get stabbed, slashed, etc. unless the criminal is just robbing in which case you have a chance, still not worth the risk. If they have the intent to harm you, they're going to stab you. I'd much rather get it over with rather than being stabbed 50 times laying there feeling everything and then either dying from a good stab, or bleeding out, punctured lung, etc. Yelling still isn't nearly as noticeable as a gunshot going off, gunshots going to alert everyone and get police presence extremely quick as compared to someone yelling.

You still do have the option to run if the criminal is using a gun, in some situations, same as with knives. Both involve the criminal being far away, which is just dumb on the criminal's part or you are not their target.

With both of them, if the person intends to harm you, they are going to harm you, unless you keep good situational awareness up.

[tepid arch]

Here I was all happy that this thread finally went cold

But then I realized I just unfollowed

https://youtu.be/KSVXD_btSWk?si=akUZXnjR6Vbj8FRZ

Enjoy!

[steep ferry]

Dang it's age restricted. Can't watch it at work. Thanks yt

Sounds hilarious btw from the comments

[wet plinth]

The point about guns being dangerous is not about whether someone intends to harm you or not with a weapon. Yes, if someone has a strong desire to harm you they can, there is not much you can do to stop them in most cases with or without guns. But the point is that with guns, people can seriously harm you or kill you with a much weaker desire to cause harm. Having guns everywhere escalates every situation where someone feels threatened or angry or upset into a potentially deadly one. Whereas without guns, in most of those situations the desire to cause harm doesn't last long enough for the person to carry it out. They calm down, or sober up, or become self conscious or afraid, and back down.

The argument that guns provide balance is one that I personally find crazy. We don't want balance, we want safety, and guns don't make anyone safe, they just put everyone a few seconds from death. It doesn't stop anyone from thinking they might be able to get an advantage on someone else enough to commit a crime, and it means that pretty much any accident has serious consequences.

Guns massively advantages aggressors, because the first one to aim it wins. Maybe that's why the US has a cultural problem with aggression; you've actually killed off all the people who were slow to shoot their opponent, and only the most aggressive survived.

What we really want, is something that massively advantages defenders. Guns don't, and won't, do that.

[steep ferry]

So to tie this back to risk... BB all the way baby!

[karmic atlas]

If guns don't advantage the defender why are there more cases reported of guns being successfully used in self-defense (keep in mind this doesn't have to mean shooting, it also includes just brandishing the gun which scares a lot of would-be aggressors off) than there are physical crimes committed?

In theory, I see your point, but that only works when looking through the lens of intent to shoot. If someone intends on shooting you, provided they can actually shoot a gun and hit their target, which a lot of people can't even do that right, then they are going to shoot you. Same with other weapons, your point there is that they can get it done faster, thus less time to think. I think that is true, but the few instances in which it happens, in my opinion, shouldn't outweigh all the other times guns are used to prevent crimes, or used to keep government in check (another side of the reason we have guns in the US).

The notion that guns only help the aggressor is just false when you talk about all crimes involving guns.

[wet plinth]

Because someone brandishing a weapon has become an aggressor themselves. And a confrontation between two aggressors with guns is basically russian roulette. Nobody's chances are good.

[steep ferry]

Best defense is a preemptive strike. Got to get that sweet attackers advantage. (To tie back to risk ofc)

[karmic atlas]

Brandishing a weapon when there is an aggressor is a defensive action. An aggressor is the person initiating the situation. Your russian roulette analogy goes for anything. It seems the chances of the defender with a gun are actually pretty good odds, statistically.

[wet plinth]

You have a different definition of 'defensive' than I do. Even if attack is the best form of defence, it's still an attack.

[karmic atlas]

I agree that defense is inherently violent. You are matching their violence. I see defense though as violence used to respond to violence being perpetrated towards you or others. Now if you believe that they are going to cause violence to you, so you preemptively go out and attack them first, then yes that is being the agressor.

[kindred vortex]

You really believe this? So Hitler had every right to kill millions of people and the grounds that in his mind he was the master race and everything or one was inferior and should be expunged from the planet? Or slavery isn't bad far as killing but lesser bring should hold no freedoms or are there for the sole purpose of servitude? Period? That if I personally found it justifiable to me to walk up to you pull a gun shoot you in the head rape your wife and take all your belongings claim them as my own as long as I got a dozen or so people to agree there will be no consequences and sign off on your extermination as justifiable. That's the way your argument comes across but I could totally and probably are completely wrong and missing your point

[low sail]

I can try and break it down again, but as I stated later on.

1. I need to become a lot better at articulating my stance on this view point

2. The view point itself needs reevaluation since it quickly becomes absurd

As for Hitler having the "right" to start the holocaust. No I don´t believe he did have a right to do so, I am however not going to say that it is inherently morally wrong, because practically, whether you agree with the nonsense racist ideology of the Nazi, or not, the Germans needed a justification for war since they were in an untenable economic position, would I personally have chosen the Jews, no I would not, but it still had a very practical purpose, which is why they did it, and as such the "gain" part of the argument is satisfied, and as such in the moral logic I put up originally would call it not immoral, not right, but not immoral.

As for the second part, again I don´t believe such a thing would be morally right, just that I can´t argue it being morally wrong, if you truly believe you would be better off doing it, even if I cannot conceive of a functional society that would ever sign of on doing something like it without severe consequences.

[low sail]

Also the slavery part was in response to something else on morality in general, I believe it was something to do with constructing moral laws, and I just made a point that slavery have been in multiple cultures, been made to be an integral part of society, and those societies believed themselves to be moral, even if we disagree with them today.

[kindred vortex]

I guess my point it's you're saying these are not moral and/ or immortal. So do you believe in right or wrong?? good or bad? You are using semantics to stay on the side lines. Africans starving has more to do with money and power over guns. Money and power buy guns
The warlords that run a few African nations Somalia comes to mind as the biggest are repressing their own people as well as nations like North Korea and to the same extent China and the genocide of Muslims in a region and Christians in another. It would be just as bad as if someone used you in a snuff film to get off some millionaire with nothing better to do. I hope some day you put yourself out there and realize there is such a thing as morality. Morality is principles and principals are the fundamental foundation of a set of beliefs or behaviors like religion or form of government. Which in a round about way you're agreeing with anyway. Just saying

[low sail]

I guess I believe there are very few things that are inherently "good", as for the examples you are giving, do you really believe that if the majority of major western nations decided to band together to form the "fuck warlords" pact, that they could not go down to Africa remove them completely, then build a functioning society, and then integrate the people of said parts of Africa in it, assuming they want democracy.

[kindred vortex]

That's called overthrowing governments of sovereign nations and is an act of war. Unfortunately my country has been playing the moral compass and world police since ww2. We need to stay out of it and fix things at home. Giving billions of dollars in aide to nations around the world when we have systemic problems of our own does no one any good. Ukraine is losing generations of men because we can't stay out of others business they would have had a peace deal done over a year ago I'd not for the U. S. And Britain saying no because war is big business. In the weapons used to the contracts to rebuild to things like NATO to station troops there after MONEY. Is again what it comes down too. The unites states could on the map own many parts of the world just from the ending of WWE Germany Japan etc. as would be our right since we won. Did we do that the short answer is no but the real answer is yes. Between contracts to rebuild , putting military installation s all over the globe and numerous other examples forcing our moral system on others and you defending it stating we western nations could if we wanted to is a farce. It being done to the extent we want because it's not profitable to Corp America . In the fact that China beat us to the punch in the cobalt mining game. A game which you gladly go along with if you own a cell phone or lap top or an EV.

Where thousands of Africans are being used as slaves until they drop where they dig and are stepped over

[low sail]

So we agree that many terrible things happen in this world, simply because it is convenient for us in the richer parts of the world?

This is more or less what I am basing my observations on, that a lot of sad preventable events are happening simply because we need them to. That since we are doing it this way, we must be okay with it on some level, and as such we must have restructured our morality to accommodate such events as permissible, or even favorable.

Even when we are claiming that morally we should never let it happen, good and evil be damned.

[kindred vortex]

Not saying they're preventable for the strong will always tell the weak what to do and think which finally brings me back to the gun debate

That's for walking us there

A man to be truly free and have the right to say what he thinks without reprisal to NOT be a slave ( which is a person with no rights at all including living or dying)has to I repeat has to have the right to defend oneself from oppression or they are not free at all and never will be

The civil war in this country was for that fundamental truth all men are created equal

If you truly are American you aren't a racist or sexist or any of that
I don't care what pigment your skin is or who you choose to sleep with etc. as long as it doesn't infringe on my rights for the same. When you (not you ) you know what I mean force your views on me and tell me do this or else we have a problem . That is different then having personal morals for the society I chose to live in. That's why we have vastly different views in this country going state to state city to city

That's the main reason we went to help in ww2 by the end we lost it and now we think are shit don't stink and the world will do what we tell them . Which I bs and a lot of Americans know it and aren't going to be good with still trying to push our views on others
Our government had us snowed for a very very long time. Covid was an exercise in obedience. Stay home wear a mask get the jab or else your evil because you don't care about everyone else DO AS YOUR TOLD. But what it did was remind a lot of us that we have god given rights that's why we're a republic and not a democracy. Do you see the difference

[low sail]

I believe I have stated that while if I could put everything in a vacuum and just decide guns or no guns, I would chose no guns.

But I do agree with you that, since you are guaranteed be the constitution to be allowed guns, and the culture seems to provide a suitable environment for it, it makes sense for you to have a gun.

What I do however see as not unreasonable is that since the same law also states that these gun owners should be part of a well regulated militia, is that it makes sense to assure that said gun owners are as proficient as possible in using said guns.

In order to reduce collateral damage, since I think that is unwanted by all.

[amber fossil]

Three countries in conflict the moment handed did what to their citizens? Sweden, Ukraine, Israeli...and the most long lasting peaceful country in human history swiss has what

[karmic atlas]

Swiss has an extremely prevalent gun culture. The problem isn't guns, it's the people. Also it's the criminal organizations that smuggle in guns and produce illegal weapons that are a big source of crime.

[low sail]

That is one thing I´ve never understood about Americans, like you were more than willing to terminate the rights of anybody suspected of terrorism, or at the very least play liberally with the concept of such an individuals rights.

But drug cartels and other organized crime organizations get constitutional protection despite the clear and present danger to your society.

[karmic atlas]

Non-citizens do not have constitutionally protected rights. They are not citizens of the US and are not afforded the same rights as citizens.

[low sail]

I´m not entirely sure that is correct, at least, that is not how you seem to be enforcing it given how I have not heard of unreasonable treatment of foreigners.

But even then you still allow organized crime organizations those rights, assuming they are composed of American citizens, and I don´t believe being American bars them from connections to larger and foreign organized crime organizations.

[stiff wasp]

Yeah it's completely incorrect. 14th amendment gives non citizens full protection under constitution I believe.“nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

[low sail]

That´s what I was thinking, because if foreigners were not under those rights, then lets say I visit the States.

A police officer, upon my arrival could seize my wallet and any other private property on me legally, because I would not have the 4th amendments protection against unlawful search and seizure, and then I would be able to be charged with jaywalking or something like that and be put in jail for life because I would not be protected by the 8th, against cruel and unusual punishment.

Since I don´t think I´ve ever heard that happen to anybody in the US I was thinking that could not be the case.

[stiff wasp]

As to the original question as to why we are able to drone strike terrorists in the middle east but not cartels in Mexico, it's probably a geopolitics thing more than a desire for equal rights

[low sail]

Well I was thinking less foreign intervention, personally, and more of a adjustment on the due process part, like if you can demonstrably prove that a drug cartel has a branch of operations, in a city in the US, why do you bother to mess around with the members of said organizations legal rights, instead of simply taking them of the streets and throwing them in jail?

[stiff wasp]

Probably the fact that you won't be able to keep them in jail for any amount of time without actual evidence? I think it used to be way harder to prove guilt back in the gangster days, before the Rico act, but it's easier now to prove guilt by association.

It's probably also about the overall sentiment that throwing an innocent person in jail is far far worse than letting a guilty one walk free

I don't know what the process to move from due process 5th amendment to extra-judicial drone killings or Guantanamo bay lawyerless imprisonment would be. It seems likely that it's a matter of us soil or not.

[low sail]

Well the jail time is only relevant under due process, as per my example earlier, if you ignored due process, you could do anything you wanted to anybody at anytime.

As for letting guilty people walk rather than throwing innocents in jail, correct me if I am wrong, but it is not exactly like these people are being subtle about what they are doing? like anybody with reasonable sense should be able to infer that they are criminals, or at least posing as criminals, and the only reason they are not already in jail, would be because under the law that is not enough?

[stiff wasp]

Yeah that's an accurate assessment. Requirements for being proven guilty are usually pretty high, for good reason.

There's also an undercurrent of racism throughout the whole thing too, so the whole "infer they are criminals" is a big minefield for rounding up cartels too

[low sail]

Well let´s assume you had ways of "illegally" obtaining evidence, wiretappings, and things of that nature, why do you let the constitution bar you from using that evidence against an organization that deliberately undermines the safety of your nation for profit?

[stiff wasp]

Til the swedes do this a bit differently - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree

[low sail]

Well the Swedish version if I read it correctly makes sense to me, why in the world would I disregard evidence, if said evidence is verifiably true, and can prove the crime, who gives a crap about how it was obtained?

[stiff wasp]

We definitely don't want the police breaking the law to obtain evidence of crimes that seems like a bad idea.

I get using it to prove innocence, and I'm curious if there's more nuance than is in this article with proving innocence vs guilt with illegally obtained evidence

[low sail]

Card blanche to break the law yes 100% agree.

But I still think it would be reasonable to allow some form of circumstance where it is permissible for an officer to attempt to obtain evidence that otherwise would be illegal.

Let´s say for example an officer has a strong suspicion that drugs can be found on a property, traditionally this would not be grounds a for a warrant, but I don´t see why you could not allow said officer to enter and search, with a camera, to document any and all actions taken within the property, to ensure no foul play, and then have sanctions in place to penalize officers who use said exception wrongfully.

[stiff wasp]

The reason is the 4th amendment illegal search and seizures. Although the "with a camera", like the increased accountability could be grounds for relaxing the high bar with increased scrutiny? I could see that being plausible.

I'd still be pretty against increasing police leeway in the current environment of police misconduct but I could see an argument for this.

[low sail]

Well police misconduct was the reason I added the "with a camera" bit, like the point was setting up a usable exception available to the police, as long as they can document, with the highest amount of reasonable transparency, what exactly went down during the exception.

Precisely so that no misconduct can be conducted, which means additional failsaves can and should be added.

[wet plinth]

There are kind of two separate issues. The first is whether people can obtain the evidence, and the second is whether the evidence can be used.

The issue with obtaining evidence is that searches and other investigatory actions have a negative effect on people. For example, if you break down someone's door to investigate the contents of their house, that door then needs to be repaired before it can be used, which means the property isn't secure until those repairs are done, which is a massive inconvenience and expense. If you stop and detain someone that is preventing them from doing the things they need to do to live their lives. There always has to be a very good reason to do anything that negatively impacts on another person.

If we allowed exceptions then the police would use those powers punitively. Police aren't immune to bad motivations, they can get angry and upset just like the rest of us, and if they were allowed to 'investigate' freely then we would suddenly find that they were 'investigating' people that they didn't like, just as punishments or as revenge. We know this happens, and we need to discourage it.

Regarding using illegally obtained evidence, the issue is that evidence needs to be reliable. How evidence is obtained is really critical as to whether or not it is reliable. For example, a confession made freely is very different from a confession made when someone is highly upset, because people can feel guilty about something that isn't their fault at all. So it is really important to maintain strong rules about how evidence can be obtained.

Police can suspect that a crime has been committed without having a good reason for it, for example simply based on them feeling stressed out by something in their personal life on that day. Having the safeguards in place regarding how evidence is obtained is a vital part of trying to have an objective law enforcement system.

[low sail]

To be a bit reductive, I feel like all of these fall under the banner of police misconduct, and again the premise was that the exception should only ever be permissible with safeguards in place, i.e. cameras or multiple witnesses, probably more or better I can´t think of, off the top of my head.

For example would you really let a serial killer off the hook, just because the only real evidence against him is a, verifiably true, recording of him obtained in a traditionally illegal way?

[wet plinth]

The point is that we can't say the evidence is verifiably true if it has been obtained in a dodgy way. It's not the fact that it was obtained illegally, it's the fact that it's illegal precisely because it produces unreliable evidence.

[soft lava]

Best defense is a good offense

[karmic atlas]

What I meant, and I did say this wrong, that is my fault, was that non-citizens are not guaranteed the same rights as citizens. There are many places where non-citizens are not allowed to purchase firearms just as an example.

[kindred vortex]

You ever heard of Julian asange? He had been in a max security prison belmarsh in England going on 5 years while waiting extradition to the U. S. but our government as well as there's don't want him to come here because then they have to charge him not hold him . All because he shed like on the corruption and illegal activities by our government at home as well as abroad.

[karmic atlas]

If I recall correctly, weren't charges brought against him for spying and the Wikileak thing of releasing classified military and diplomatic files or something?

Well not charges, but that is the reason they are trying to get him extradited to the US?

Or were, haven't really heard anything about it recently

[kindred vortex]

They brought him in on a rape charge that was bogus and never let him go. That is why Snowden went and got asylum from russia

[wet plinth]

Yeah, the Assange saga makes a mockery of any claim that the US government believes people have rights. It's been one lie after another, trying to exact revenge on him for publishing diplomatic communications.

The stance seems to be that US laws apply to everyone in the world, but nobody except US citizens have any rights.

[wet plinth]

Yeah, since Assange would never voluntarily travel to the US because he knew he would be detained and tortured, the US created a fake rape charge in Sweden to try and get him into a prison in Sweden, because they knew they could persuade Sweden to extradite him to the US.

Assange was located in the UK, and the UK courts decided that they had to honour the Swedish request for extradition, as despite everyone knowing what was going to happen, there wasn't any solid evidence that the lawyers could refer to. So Assange claimed asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy in London to avoid being extradited from the UK to Sweden.

In 2017 the US started putting pressure on the new Ecuadorian president, which resulted in him radically changing his policies and revoking Assange's asylum in 2019, in a coordinated event with UK police to take him into UK custody. Once that was done, the US announced its extradition request, that they believed the UK would accept. It was all but announced that the Swedish rape charge was fake, and that charge just disappeared to avoid complicating the US extradition request.

Since then, the US has been trying to persuade the UK courts that it won't torture Assange. It failed to do that initially, but if the US waits long enough and puts enough pressure on a government, eventually they'll get a combination of judges and politicians that will let them have their way. So yeah, it's likely that at some point Assange will be transported to the US for torture, simply because he published classified documents that embarrassed the US.

[kindred vortex]

Tucker Carlson went over and interviewed him 2 months ago maybe and the Brits and the Americans would rather let him die in that prison then try to get him to the US

[wet plinth]

I think the US would still like to get him to the US eventually. But I agree that there isn't the same urgency to change the status quo now, as there was when he was technically free in the Ecuadorian embassy.

One way or another the US will have to take him when the appeal process finishes.

[kindred vortex]

H will be dead before that ever happens.
This happened 2 weeks ago I've been following this
Gonzalo Lira, Sr. says his son has died at 55 in a Ukrainian prison, where he was being held for the crime of criticizing the Zelensky and Biden governments. Gonzalo Lira was an American citizen, but the Biden administration clearly supported his imprisonment and torture.

[wet plinth]

Yeah.....I imagine the UK has slightly more robust legal system than the Ukraine. Especially right now. We're not going to hold him indefinitely for the US.

[fringe jungle]

@tepid arch Your flowchart begins with the assumption that people agree with you. That seems rather disingenuous, don't you think? "Given that you agree with me, what do we do about it?" Fully half the country wouldn't make it past your first question without the conversation ending. Are you just not interested in the other half of the discussion, or did you not realize you were cutting it out?

[tepid arch]

incorrect
My flowchart begins with a question not an assumption.

I have been attempting to find an answer without the conversation becoming deranged by going to places that are irrelevant to that question. It does most of the time which the flowchart and my interactions here attempt to show.
If people are unable or unwilling to have a conversation about the question 'are guns a problem' that's totally fine with me. It's not my problem. I'm very happy to 'cut out the other half of the discussion' or whatever percentage if the person I am talking to is not competent at basic logic since I only have limited time. I have to be very careful about who is worth that time having a conversation with. There is no sense arguing with a child about what their favourite flavour of ice cream is.

I'm now interested in designing similar flowcharts to understand the consistent ways people fail at logic in other topics and see if we can correleate to better understand the underlying structure.

[hasty shadow]

If a carpenter builds a home that collapses we should blame the wood, hammer, and nails; NOT the carpenter. All tools are the means to an end. How you define/ use the tool, is what you will view it as.

[karmic atlas]

Well there is a problem there. The carpenter can be blamed if the job the carpenter was meant to do was done improperly leading to the materials to not work as intended. Now overtime the materials will eventually give and be more prone to collapse but that had little to no user input to directly cause that other than originally being made with the best possible quality at the time.

[tropic frigate]

I personally (as a German citizen, where guns are heavily regulated, but also as someone who borders both Austria and Switzerland, where guns are much less regulated) think that the biggest issue with guns and gun laws in the US is not related directly to guns itself, but is an underlying societal problem, thus the problem has a pivot point. In my opinion (and that's just an opinion, I do not claim correctness or truth there) The problem with guns would resolve itself, if society as a whole, (but looking at the US in particular here, as it's the object of discussion) valued life and wellbeing more, then guns would not even be considered evil, as murder wouldn't be considered a problem. Guns are a facilitator for crime, and they facilitate it more easily than knives or strings, for example, but all of those objects can become murder weapons with malicious intent. And that is where I think the underlying problem really is. People who are happy with their lives usually don't murder other people for any reason. I think the problem with guns in the US is as much tied to gun regulation (as long as the societal problem isn't resolved) as it is to resolving said societal problem. Referring to one of your latest videos, in which you elaborated that our society has a skewed value system, as we are obsessed with material gains (may I add - even to a point at which we objectify people themselves) I personally think that education and perspective in life should receive as much focus as gun laws themselves. Laws are only needed if people have an incentive to break them if they were simply unspoken rules without punishment when broken. Unless both sides of the issue (the cause of violence itself as well as the means to produce said violence) are taken into consideration at the same time, there won't be much that can be done to better the situation. In my opinion a solution could be a gun license and making education more available to people with smaller income.

that would in turn lower the incentive for violence and thus reduce the necessity for gun laws in the long run. There's also a case to be made that the well-armed milita (as requested by the 2A) is not only a right to bear arms, but also a duty to defend the country. There is a very well made youtube video on that subject by John Harris who explained why Switzerland does not have a problem with gun violence, despite having quite the extensive gun culture, on which the 2A was actually based when it was written, according to him and his research.

[kindred hill]

I think there is a big problem with violence in general, but a bigger problem with guns specifically, putting me half into the conversation box and half into the violence countermeasures box. I'll focus on the prior part.

[tropic frigate]

I agree with this, as guns are far more lethal than other means. If nuclear bombs were readily available to the public, they would be an even bigger problem. That is tied to the amount of harm that can be done with a weapon in a given amount of time. A gun is more efficient at killing than a knife, but less efficient at killing than a nuclear bomb, thus being the most efficient weapon available for killing it's the biggest problem. That is causally tied to the problem of people wanting to murder each other too though, so it can't be isolated as the sole issue, but needs being addressed nonetheless.

[kindred hill]

As others mentioned guns are much easier to use than other weapons. This makes them a unique problem. Some guns can shoot hundreds, or even thousands of rounds, and have no major restrictions compared to other guns. I understand rifles for hunting, handguns and shotguns for protection from nature (near yellowstone for example) but all guns cant be put in one basket. The second amendment is from a time when shooting multiple rounds a minute was an achievement. The laws and regulations need to be updated nowadays. That's the core issue I see.

[tropic frigate]

Absolutely true, and I may add that the 2A was adopted in a time when the US were at risk of being overrun by foreign enemies. The right to bear arms should also thus be seen as an obligation to defend the country, not as a means to fight the government or people you don't like. Only when guns become primarily seen as sporting equipment or tools for self-defense in a broader sense, they can be fully unrestricted. If people don't point guns at other people, unless they have to defend themselves with this ultimate form of violence, then guns wouldn't be an issue. But society has to come a VERY long way until that is achieved.

[kindred hill]

These things are definitely correlated to each other, though I think they don't have to be addressed simultaneously. I think steps can be taken on each problem separately. I definitely think both parts need to be addressed though, for a more permanent result. Exclusively fixing one would not bring about lasting success.

[tropic frigate]

yes, exactly. Addressing one problem is a band-aid applied to a wound. For the wound to fully heal we need both issues to be resolved, but that is clearly not something that can be done within a legislative period, that is an ongoing problem that probably will need generations to fix.

[ionic canopy]

Any gun Law is unconstitutional, Repeal the NFA

[fringe jungle]

@tepid arch Well, that's a reasonable attitude and answer. The question is a yes or no question. Are guns a problem? I answer no, so according to the flowchart, the conversation ends. How am I supposed to contribute anything now? In order to reach the point where the conversation begins, I'm required to move all the way to the left on your flowchart, creating a situation where only people who already agree get to participate.

This is important to me, because society these days routinely says you only get to participate in many conversations if you agree with them, calling any kind of disagreement "hate speech" or "racism." Saying guns aren't a problem would be considered racist hate speech by many, even when that isn't even coherent.

[tepid arch]

You're not required to do anything

I'm good with where we're at

Saying guns aren't a problem isn't racist hate speech at all

Saying guns aren't a problem is simply not discussing 'the problem with guns'

which is the topic at hand

so I'm glad we're able to reach a conclusion without wasting any more time.

[fringe jungle]

So then, my original assertion is correct. This is a conversation for people who already agree.

The problem there is that any potential solutions will have their effectiveness drastically reduced, since you cut out anyone willing to properly challenge the ideas proposed. Even the question itself isn't a proper one. What problem are you trying to solve? The fact that guns exist? The fact that war exists? I would assert that it's a big waste of time to speak in an echo chamber and then discover nothing is effective the moment you leave it.

[tepid arch]

Why did I build this forum? It exists so you can have as much of your free speech as possible within the limits of TOS on the platform.
I want you to feel free to shout into the void of the internet with whatever you'd like and see what comes back. I'm glad you're availing yourself of that privilege.

As I have tried and consistently failed to show THIS ENTIRE thread is not meant to be about guns but about logic.

The question: 'are guns a problem?' is only solvable if you accept the premise 'guns are a problem' if you do not accept the premise the conversation ends.

You assume I have a position or an argument but I do not. I am trying to construct one by asking questions. What problem is that question trying to solve? The problem of guns of course, but iff (if and only if) guns are a problem, which we have not yet proven. I don't know that they are. If they aren't, the conversation ends since the question is not meaningful as you pointed out.

I also agree that this is a massive waste of time. The process of attempting and failing to have this conversation looks like:

1. I construct the domain of the discourse in order to have a productive conversation.
2. People don't read the thread so they insert their own opinons, thoughts biases and judgments as well as asserting that I have a position I do not hold.
3. I leave this thread because there is no point in wasting my own time repeating myself.
4. I get pinged back into this thread to repeat myself, clarify and defend strawmen instead of gaining further insight into the underlying structure of why the same types of logic errors are ocurring on the topic.

I am not constructing limits to your ability to have a conversation about the topic in fact I have built an entire forum here where you are free and encouraged to do so. I am constructing limits in my willingness to have a conversation that is illogical. Since if there is no problem with guns, there is no need to discuss solutions to a problem that doesn't exist. It's circular. That box is clean and closed. The fact that I'm spending this much time there is indicative of this consistent type of mental failure that I would love to understand in greater detail.

I most certainly don't want an echo chamber. I want and demand a conversation that either progresses and is coherent or doesn't and stops wasting my time.

[fringe jungle]

@tepid arch I consider myself lucky that you are responding to me personally. Your original flowchart and post present a contradiction. You said that you wanted to discuss four questions, the first of which is whether guns are a problem. The problem is that if the answer is no, then the conversation ends rather than a discussion occurring. If you are attempting to construct a position by asking the question, then it would only make sense to hear both sides of the argument.

I will present my answers to your questions, and perhaps you'll find it useful in the progression of the conversation. Perhaps not. Either way, I appreciate the answers you've given so far and thank you for them.

[fringe jungle]

1. Are guns a problem? This question is too generic. If guns are the problem, then getting rid of guns is the solution, and any other solution is simply a means towards achieving that end. Are guns a problem? Yes. Is it because they exist? No, it's because people are hurt by those using guns. But this is already logically a very different problem. If people getting hurt via guns is the issue, then discussing guns as the problem, which is a different problem, is always going to feel circular and largely meaningless. If no one was ever hurt, would guns be a problem? If bullets disappeared, would guns still be a problem? Once you progress away from guns being the problem and towards people being hurt being the problem, you gain the ability to apply logic to the problem and the ability for a conversation to progress.

2. Are you failing to communicate with the flowchart? Yes. The flowchart communicates that you already have a position, rather than allowing a conversation to happen that uses logic to create a position. Additionally, the four questions from the flowchart are logically at odds with the four questions in the post.

3. The reason people spend time in the "violence and other weapons" box is because logic takes them there. The reason people are unwilling to argue with reason instead of emotion is because the challenges presented are not logical ones, but rather emotional ones. Guns are presented as a problem because they are, not because any logical argument presented them as a problem. An argument devoid of logic will attract answers devoid of logic.

4. Should you care? Should you accept that communication is broken? Yes, you should care. Creating space for people to logically discuss important topics is good and worth something. Communication is broken because those with the logic and the ability to progress the conversation are often the first to leave.

[tepid arch]

What would your flowchart look like?

"Are guns a problem? Yes. Is it because they exist? No, it's because people are hurt by those using guns. But this is already logically a very different problem."

This is semantics

" Communication is broken because those with the logic and the ability to progress the conversation are often the first to leave."

I do not presume that have the ability to progress the conversation so my leaving has to do with the fact that I am unwilling to have my time wasted.

Unfollowing thread again.

[ionic canopy]

Sounds like guns win 🥳

|| this is clearly a joke ||

[kindred vortex]

Sure they said he same thing the first time someone made an arrow. Rocks are much more civilized. Come on . If nukes were available to the everyday citizen we wouldn't have to worry we'd all be dead. I'm sure all the Jewish people just went on those trains peacefully and didn't mind being tortured. They gave up their guns when asked. the king of England said the same thing to the colonists. You know what stopped it from happening to the colonists? They didn't give theirs up without a fight. Freedom of speech is very delicate
When one tells another what they can and can't say you are becoming a slave and when you have means of protecting yourself to have free speech you are a slave because those with the weapons make the rules. Just be glad America had these principles during and after ww2
We ce over and helped beat Hitler and then when we were the only nation in the world with nuclear weapons we didn't take over everything like so many in history do. Until then conquering countries took over everything. We could have and we didn't. What did we do this (back then ) god fearing country ? We helped rebuild and let the nations keep their land and wealth. Natural resources etc. and yes this all goes back to gun laws and the rights of citizens
Like Superman says " with great power comes great responsibility"

[tropic frigate]

To be a little offensive here I gotta put out the statement that you (as the collective US) only realized you need access to natural resources way later. Missing an opportunity isn't the same as being benevolent. (Let's be clear, this isn't my personal opinion, yet it'd be a valid argument. My personal opinion is that the US has lost its values since WW2. It has lost its teeth and its will to do what is right and necessary, and that is why there are political differences within the US right now. It isn't free speech that is impeding or empowring you, the biggest issue with the United States at the moment is loss of respect. Of each other's compatriots as well as of life in general. Money has become more important than anything. When regarding how businesses were led around the time of WW2 and how they are led now, it seems that many people in positions of power have forgotten that - with reference to what you said - power comes with responsibility. That is the core issue with what is wrong with the US (and in extension with the entire world.) Where are the people who were man enough to congratulate each other after a won/lost election? Where are the people who wished each other good luck, despite their political differences? Freedom of speech wasn't under attack earlier because said speech was respectful and not entitled and demanding. That is the core issue I perceive, and whilst that might look like something you could fight for with guns, this time it isn't violence, but education and intellectual growth that will make the difference. And I'm not saying this as a counter-argument to what you said, but as an addition to what you correctly pointed out.

[fringe jungle]

If guns are truly the problem, then the only logical conclusion is that guns must be removed. The only way other solutions make sense is if there is a different problem to solve. So my flowchart would be the opposite of yours.

Are guns the problem?
Yes > Remove all guns > impossible solution, conversation and nuance ceases.
No > What is the actual problem? > Conversation can actually occur, analyze identified problems to find solutions.

This is not semantics. As long as you have the attitude that guns are the problem, then every single proposed solution with be vehemently opposed by anyone who doesn't think all guns should be banned, no matter how reasonable you think your solution is, because your endgame will always be painfully transparent. If you want to progress the conversation, then you must find a different problem that doesn't have a logically impossible solution, because guns are never going to be banned.

[tepid arch]

Yep

It's never gonna happen

INGH

This is where I'll start my next discussion on logic

Thank you guys all for participating in this thread

I have learned a lot

If you would like to make a thread discussing guns, please feel free to use the forums.

I will be closing this one now because this one isn't actually about guns and I can't afford to keep getting pinged here and brought into a circular conversation that goes nowhere.