Eh, I could live without ’em.
Me too, but what can you do
I mostly make this as a containment thread.
You can live without government?
Have you ever tried?
Governments don't really like to let people try.
Plenty of destabilized or lawless areas in the world you could move to.
Anarchism is based on the flawed assumption that everyone is an informed moral individual.
The reality is the reverse, informed moral individuals are maybe one in 10,000, and the entire system of civilization is how to play one immoral idiot off against another to ensure stability.
The thing is, governments don't create politics, politics create govenrments. Governments take care of politics, leaving the populace at large to disregard it when they want. With no government, you effectively have to be your own diplomat to everywhere else. You might not even qualify as a civillian, depending on interpretation.
Anarchism works fine in the small scale. The problem is less about "informed moral individuals" and more about human societies exceeding Dunbar's Number. Most people don't really need to be told to treat other people well when they know everyone else in their society's name and face. It's once people become numbers or you get beyond the number of people you can recognize as individuals that people really start hurting and taking advantage of one another in any serious way that couldn't be dealt with via anarchism.
I'm not proposing that we give up on largescale civilization, I'm just saying that I think your idea of why anarchism doesn't work on that scale is a little cynical.
There are outliers from any group, that doesn't mean it's not a group.
>Pressganging others into joining a group with some arbitrary code of conduct
That's not what's happening though, men are born this way. Outliers who are more centered on feminine qualities aren't really forced to take shop class, there are plenty of male writers, politicians, musicians and artists.
>Talking about what's "natural" is idiotic
Actually the progressive idiot made an appeal to nature by claiming that men are naturally "tabula rasa" and have masculinity forced on them. This is an incorrect view which has been discredited for longer than phrenology.
The desires of men are entirely natural - not social constructs - and based on brain chemistry which is controlled by di hydro testosterone during early development. This is a gene found only on the Y chromosome.
We also know this is true because when this development process fails (in 0.17%-1% of men) they are born homosexual or transsexual. Genes which interfere in this process are often dubbed silly things like "gay gene" by the mass media, you may have heard of them.
>the discussion should be more about what's best
And who gets to deside what's best, you? The government? A preacher? Who has the moral authority to tell gay or transsexual or straight men what they should or shouldn't be? Who has the authority to tell someone what's best for them?
>“feminists are trying to control every aspect of manhood”.
Considering they're starting child care centers designed around "teaching men not to be men so they'll be less violent"... it's a valid concern.
>teaching men not to be men
lol. Masculinity is so fragile in men like you.
Just like homosexuality when we teach homos not to homo. Fragile fucks.
So you see violence as being as essential to masculinity as having sex with people of the same sex is to homosexuals. Interesting. And sort of proves the point everyone's been making about how toxic your brand of masculinity is.
>"teaching men not to be men so they'll be less violent"
what about being a man is inherently violent
or maybe you can answer me what about women make them inherently not violent
also what's it mean to be a man
>watching Obama's address on the Oregon shooting (//youtube.com/watch?v=yca-uwxCsWg)
As an Australian, I don't listen to him much, but I thought that was a sane, thought-provocative speech that raised many valid points. Also, that comment to the journalists was niiiice. Also, why are people calling it angry?
>mfw the camera clicks at the end sound like shitty guns
>also what's it mean to be a man
See but even this demonstrates the point here: there are multiple forms masculinity can take, and to say that a man has to be a warrior (in the second one) or a messiah (in the first one) is exactly why men need to be granted freedom from the gender roles that have been forced upon us. And the people who prop up the toxic, current form of masculinity are the ones who are limiting what men can be, while feminism is attempting to free us from that. The people who are fighting against that are the people who either benefit from rigid gender roles, or people who are too scared of having to adapt to a world where the rules are different.
And on the point of toxic masculinity, go watch Mad Max: Fury Road. And yes I'm absolutely fucking serious, because Nux’s story arc is about the shedding of toxic masculinity.
In the closed-off society of the War Boys, men are only seen as “true” War Boys if they’re “witnessed” doing something violent and dangerous in service of Immortan Joe. Who knows what they must think of women. And Joe himself—a man who rules via zero-sum dominance and exploitation—is seen as the “truest” man (a role model, even!) amongst the War Boys. Nux wants to “die historic” in service of Joe, but each time he tries, he fails; this leads to Joe judging Nux as “mediocre”. As a result, Nux falls into an emotional black hole, disappointed with no longer being part of something greater than himself—with no longer having a purpose.
Then Nux spends time with Capable—a woman who allows him to express his feelings without first putting himself in mortal danger—and all of that changes. Given time to reflect on himself and his sense of purpose, Nux casts aside his devotion to Joe (as well as the single-minded pursuit of a “historic death” as the final expression of said devotion), then dedicates himself to a new purpose: preserving life by helping Furiosa and the Wives escape Joe. One night of being shown compassion and empathy after a lifetime of being raised to believe Joe and his brand of masculinity is the “true” path for a War Boy changed Nux for the rest of his life; he even fulfills his new “larger than life” purpose by crashing the War Rig, which lets Furiosa and the Wives escape Joe’s convoy and return to Citadel as liberators. He dies not for the selfish gain of one man, but for the net gain of a society that will no longer be controlled by that man.
Nux came from a culture obsessed with primitive ideals of power and domination, and his desire to “die historic” was the result of his immersion in that culture. One night outside of it—a night to reflect on who he is, what he’s done, and what he could do—gave him all he needed to reject Joe’s form of masculinity and embrace a form where men have a purpose in helping the communal good.
And he never needed to be an “alpha male” to do that.
>We are all mankind.
I didn't ask you what species you are.
>Generally, having a penis.
Having a penis says nothing beyond your biological make up.
And I didn't ask you what it meant to be masculine.
>penis says nothing beyond your biological makeup
We are talking about biology here. There are two main sexes: man and woman. The difference is the biological makeup. The clearest signal of which sex a person is is their genitalia.
That is literally what makes someone a man. To be a man means that you are the key, not the lock.
If that answer does not satisfy you, then you are asking the wrong question.
>To be a man means that you are the key, not the lock.
Oh my Christ in Heaven, do you actually subscribe to that "one key that opens many locks is better than one lock that can be opened by many keys" mindset?
Or the idea that vulvas contain an intricate set of tumblers that can only be opened by a particularly shaped dick.
And that when one fits, the woman's abdomen opens like a giant locket and you pull out a fully formed baby.
maybe that guy's a robot and that's how robot women work
i wouldn't know because i did not study robotics
let's ask dr wily
No I don't support that 'master key/shitty lock' idea, but I still like to use 'lock and key' as a euphemism for penis and vagina, simply because one is made to be put in the other. No ulterior message.
i like that idea
I used to have a technology teacher named Mr Willy. He was pure shit at his job.
>you see violence as being as essential to masculinity
Actually YOU see that, don't project.
>what about being a man is inherently violent
>what about women make them inherently not violent
Feminists seem to think men are violent thugs and women are immaculate perfection. The reality is that women are just as abusive and violent, in some cases more so.... but you'll never hear feminsts starting a preschool for girls to make them "behave less feminine so they'll be less violent."
>a man has to be
You're like a broken record, no one else is saying that fam.
>believing in toxic masculinity
>one sex does all the violence
>using a goddamn action movie to "prove" it exists
>one sex does all the violence
You know, I might appreciate the straw you shoved in my mouth if I were a scarecrow. But I’m not.
I like the Mad Max series too but this is kind of a bad post.
Important Joe was a god to the War Boys. Nux realized his religion was meaningless and found something he desired more.
Don't think it particularly had anything to do with masculinity or femininity.
Truth be told though, Road Warrior was the best in the series. With so little dialogue it told so much, a fantastic example of Show Don't Tell, and the action was aces.
Definitely one of my all time favorite movies.
What are your favorites, /baw/?
And yet, a feminist reading of the movie was popular enough that dozens or even hundreds of MRAs boycotted the film because of it. So regardless of your personal interpretation of it, it's not like he made up the idea that Fury Road was about feminism.
Maybe he didn't, but I kind of feel like someone did.
Yes, someone did create the idea that Fury Road had feminist undertones, and they did so based on the movie's content and subtext. That's the way cultural analysis works: we look for signals and patterns and subtext, interpret them based on our personal cultural biases, and put them up against others' opinions. I'll give you another example from Fury Road: the arc of the Max and Furiosa relationship is about how, despite how we may all be great in our own individual ways, we need each other to survive—nay, to overcome. Max might never have regained his sense of self without Furiosa (notice that he never says his name to any other character in the film until the moment he’s giving his blood to her), and Furiosa might not have gotten the idea to turn back to the Citadel—to topple Joe’s patriarchal regime—without Max. When Max fails to shoot the Bullet Farmer using a rifle, Furiosa uses Max as a stabilizer for the rifle and nails the shot. When Furiosa is bleeding out, Max gives her his blood to save her. One needed the other, no matter who’s the “one” or the “other”. We only move forward together.
I...don't understand what We're All In This Together has to do with feminism--not any moreso than it does egalitarianism, or even moderate MRAs.
In fact, an old radfem friend of mine scolded me pretty seriously for bringing up that idea when we first started discussing social justice with each other.
>I...don't understand what We're All In This Together has to do with feminism
It’s not so much that the idea has to do with feminism, so much as it has to do with me showing you an example of how one can read the Max/Furiosa relationship as having that subtext—which, in turn, shows you how people can think Fury Road has feminist undertones/subtext based on both that relationship and other factors within the movie.
What exactly is a "moderate" MRA? And what is the difference between egalitarianism and feminism? Or is it just that thing misogynists do where they try to deny women their place in the issue by changing the name?
It wasn't MRAs, it was Aaron Clarey from the MGTOW/Misogynist website "Return of Kings", this was patient zero.
If you're going to talk about this shit at least take info from someone who was in the fucking threads to begin with.
MRA blogs, youtubers and podcasters (HBR etc) didn't even know about this movie until they heard about it third (fourth?) hand via a twitter outrage storm by an SJWs accusing them of starting the Fury Road hate.
Why the fuck would a rights movement care about a movie? MRAs don't believe in intersectionality or critical theory.
>Why the fuck would a rights movement care about a movie?
Because it's not a Rights movement, it's an anti-feminism movement.
>what is the difference between egalitarianism and feminism?
Egalitarian: Asserting, resulting from, or characterized by belief in the equality of all people, especially in political, economic, or social life.
Feminism: Belief in or advocacy of women's social, political, and economic rights, especially with regard to equality of the sexes.
Egalitarianism is the personal belief that all people are equal, and the personal philosophy to treat everyone equally. Feminism is the political movement that asserts the female sex has fewer privileges in society, and organizes to grant that sex greater privileges.
85% of Americans identify as egalitarian, whereas only 18% of Americans identify as feminists.
I can't speak for other people or the people in that survey, but in my case I treat all people equally and believe all persons are fundamentally equal and have equal worth in society. I also don't identify as feminist because I disagree that females have fewer privileges in society, I disagree with the philosophy of granting females more privileges, and I deeply despise the methods feminists use to grant females more privileges.
>I also don't identify as feminist because I disagree that females have fewer privileges in society, I disagree with the philosophy of granting females more privileges, and I deeply despise the methods feminists use to grant females more privileges.
But there's already a term for that philosophy. "Misogynist."
Are you saying Men's Rights Activists aren't part of a rights movement?
(I can't tell whether this is serious or a joke due to it being on the internet. This is sad)
Yes, I am saying they are not part of a rights movement. They are a hate movement that knows calling themselves a hate movement will draw bad publicity.
The U.N.’s Cyberharassment Report Is Really Bad
Uh oh, now all the liberals of Plus4 will deny that Sarkeesian is literally the Jack Thompson of our generation.
>implying Anita Sarkeesian put together that whole report herself or agrees with every last proposal and idea presented within it
I suspect that the conservatives of the internet have brought about an apotheosis from Anita Sarkeesian--it no longer matters what the actual human being with that name says or does or believes, they have raised her to the status of a Dark God representing everything they hate about women and society at large outside of the sausage party of a society they want gaming to be. She is their Angra Mainyu of their weird manichean cult of penis-worship.
And I suspect the liberals of the internet are literally plugging their ears to anyone who argues that Anita is a genuinely horrible person with literally pages upon pages of cited sources about how much of a hack she is, and going "Lalala you're just an MRA who hates women, lalala".
Okay. Fine. You wanna call her “the Jack Thompson of our generation”, then put your money where your mouth is: prove she wants video games censored and banned from store shelves for their content just as Jack Thompson did.
I mean, you haven’t forgotten how Jack Thompson actually sue several video game producers for direct liability in regards to several violent incidents, right? Or how he tried to sue several retail outlets to force them into pulling Bully from their shelves? Or how he vowed to stop Rockstar from releasing Manhunt 2 in any way until the company squashed his efforts in court? I have no doubt that you’ll be able to come up with dozens of examples of how Anita Sarkeesian is doing the same kind of shit as he did, now that I’ve given you a small reminder of what he did before the Florida Bar yanked his license to practice law. No doubt at all.
>cares about publicity
That's a new one. Maybe you're just seeing the shit parts of the group (like how there are shit parts of the feminism movement too). From what I've seen, it's guys making valid points about rights we don't have, and trying to raise awareness.
That said, I don't keep up with any sex/gender political movements, aside from cringe threads.
>Scholars consider the men's rights movement a backlash or countermovement to feminism. Bob Lingard and Peter Douglas suggest that the conservative wing of the men's rights movement rather than the men's rights position in general is an antifeminist backlash. Masculinities scholar Jonathan A. Allan described the men's rights movement as a reactive movement which is defined by its opposition to women and feminism but which has not yet formulated its own theories and methodologies outside of antifeminism.
>The men's rights movement consists of diverse points of view which reject feminist and profeminist ideas. Men's rights activists have said that they believe that feminism has overshot its objective and harmed men. They believe that rights have been taken away from men and that men are victims of feminism and feminizing influences in society. They dispute that men as a group have institutional power and privilege and believe that men are often victimized and disadvantaged relative to women. Men's rights groups generally reject the notion that feminism is interested in men's problems and some men's rights activists have viewed the women's movement as a plot to conceal discrimination against men.
>Sectors of the men's rights movement have been viewed as exhibiting misogynistic tendencies. The Southern Poverty Law Center has said that while some of the websites, blogs and forums related to the movement "voice legitimate and sometimes disturbing complaints about the treatment of men, what is most remarkable is the misogynistic tone that pervades so many."
News flash dumbass, not everyone who disagrees with you is one person.
Breaking News: All I see is "Anonymous". If you want to differentiate yourself from other anonymous posters, get a name/tripcode, otherwise don't get pissed if you stay anonymous and I confuse you with another anonymous poster.
>The Southern Poverty Law Center
>The Southern Poverty Law Center
No, just an asshole.
Being German, this whole refugee thing is surreal as fuck. Like, they're everywhere. You can't escape it.
I think she's married, fam. So you should move on and start crushing on a new woman.
>prove she wants video games censored and banned from store shelves for their content
Watch any game video she ever makes, she's 100% against violence and is not satisfied with making other types of games available
>Criticism is not censorship.
So why is she complaining at the fucking United Nations that someone called her a liar?
Ah, yes, how dare someone use a source as liberally biased as Wikipedia. They should have used something neutral like Conservapedia, right?
Plus4 is too much of a liberal hugbox for there to be a politics thread. You can spout "intelligent discussion about important topics" all you fucking want. The fact is this community is tiny. And 99% of it is liberal. So there's literally no point of this thread if conservative opinions keep getting shot down, and the ones spouting them are ousted by the community for being "bigots".
>What exactly is a "moderate" MRA? And what is the difference between egalitarianism and feminism?
"I care about how social issues affect (optional but common: DFAB) women, since men are the oppressor class. "
"I care about social issues, especially those that affect women."
"I care about social issues with no real bias towards gender one way or the other."
"I care about social issues, especially the ones that affect men."
"I care about social issues that affect men, since women are the pampered gender."
Criticism isn't *always* harassment. Anything can be harassment if it's done in a harassing way. Like saying "You look nice today" isn't harassment, but that doesn't mean it's never harassment to compliment someone on their appearance.
"liberal hugbox" on the internet is code for "people actually look down on us for calling people niggers here."
>85% of Americans identify as egalitarian, whereas only 18% of Americans identify as feminists.
For those who missed it.
Feminism is a trash movement, feminists are trash, no sane woman today identifies as feminist. Claiming to help women or speak for all women is the epitome of retardation when the vast majority of women doesn't fucking want you to exist.
How about use neither of those because they're both heavily biased "public" wikipedias with zero editorial consequences for being wrong?
>"liberal hugbox" on the internet is code for "liberal strawmanbox"
>she's 100% against violence and is not satisfied with making other types of games available
>How about use neither of those because they're both heavily biased "public" wikipedias with zero editorial consequences for being wrong?
Wikipedia has been tested multiple times and found to have a higher accuracy rate than the Encyclopedia Britannica.
You're literally proving my point.
Oh dear. Are you not feeling hugged enough in this little hugbox?
>there's literally no point of this thread if conservative opinions keep getting shot down, and the ones spouting them are ousted by the community for being "bigots"
I don't think we have a problem with conservative opinions. We have a problem with people saying shit like “sandniggers”, then thinking we should take them and their opinions seriously.
Are you such a coward you have to hide in your little zealous community instead of attempting to open your mind to different points of view without being a condescending fuckwad?
You are aware that 'radical feminist' is a label for a very specific type of feminist politics, right?
>Wikipedia is the best.
There is to date no complete, peer reviewed, independent study on Wikipedia accuracy.
The one you're talking about is probably a Nature report from 2005 which took sample articles from Wikipedia and Britannica for comparison. The result was averaged 4 serious errors per page on Wikipedia, and 3 on Britannica. Since then Wikipedia has grown from 3 to 37 million articles, and has massively declined in quality.
However the articles examined were "completed" ones from Wikipedia, and random ones from Britannica. No edit-warring or controversial articles from wiki were used, so the result was biased in their favor even then.
There is another study in 2012 by which compared a few articles on politics (Zhu et al), the results were that 73% of the Wikipedia article examined contained political bias, whereas only 34% of Britannica ones did. But even that's not a complete assessment.
In comparison to Wikipedia, Britannica gets a complete assessment every time it's published.
All anyone reading this needs to know about Wikipedia is to go on the wikiproject Feminism page, pick an article they're currently ruining, and check what the feminist flying monkeys are being sicced on. They just destroyed the Equity and Gender feminism article.
It's the thing you left out.
Nah, you guys (though not necessarily you) do have a real issue with opposing political opinions.
I post stupid stuff sometimes (>sometimes) for the sake of poking fun at the less stable Radlibanons, but nothing at all like what you said, and still basically every single post I make gets like 3-4 presumably different anons trying their best, God bless their little hearts, to destroy my immovable ego and sense of self-righteousness.
It's pretty ridiculous in all honesty.
>Admits to intentionally trolling people
>Uses negative response to admitted trolling as evidence that non-trolling conservatives aren't accepted
Why would I poke fun at people if I didn't know it would illicit a great reaction?
The freakouts started before the trolling, and even on my serious posts, people basically lose their minds over me, it's kind of great.
(see: circumcision and the complete non-engagement of anyone once I made a post with substance, it immediately just became jabs at Slowpoke instead of jabs at Slowpoke's Argument)
Link me to a video where she says she wants a certain type of game banned from store shelves. Show me an article penned by her where she talks about getting games censored via either legal action or government intervention. I don’t have the time or inclination to hunt through all of her articles, videos, etc. for examples of what you’re accusing her of saying, so a “shortcut” to what she actually said that fits under those descriptions—a “citation”, if you will—is all I’m asking for.
You mean when you literally made a post defending someone who said that feminists were wrong for worrying about female genital mutilation because in your mind circumcision is exactly as bad?
Be sure to warm up before any and all mental gymnastics, don't want to tear a lobe. ;)
It doesn't take any mental gymnastics. I even called you on it at the time. One guy made a post saying how circumcision proved that feminists were stupid for caring about female genital mutiliation. I asked "Are you seriously comparing circumcision to female genital mutilation" and you responded with a post saying that they were exactly the same thing and then when people pointed out that you were becoming a self-parody you started saying how serious you were--but you were still jumping to the defense of a guy who said that being less concerned about circumcision than female genital mutilation was proof of feminist hypocrisy.
Depends on the article. The gender articles have shit eaters like Ryulong editing them.
Did you notice it's only non-white countries who do FGM? Feminists should fuck off to there.
>stay away from any student showing signs of:
You're right, feminists should help more non-white people. Thanks for indirectly addressing an actual thing feminists struggle with :)
And it's trolls like this that give actually decent conservatives a bad name
No, see, you're still performing the gymnastics, but I don't think you're aware of it--kind of impressive, really, to do so many backflips unconsciously.
Here, let me help you out.
>It's hypocritical to freak out over FGM but not care at all about circumcision
DOES NOT MEAN
>It's stupid to care about genital mutilation, especially FGM.
>We should probably freak out over the fact that we, the US (presumably), who wear a facade of being civilized and advanced, still mutilate half our population's genitals for literally no reason other than aesthetics.
Hope this helped lad, have a great day.
As an aside, interesting that it was only the "conservatives" and the "MRAs" in this thread who cared at all about male genital mutilation, the "feminists" had no issue with it, despite them claiming that feminism helps men too.
The thing is, there's more than one kind of genital mutilation, and many are more severe than foreskin removal.
It's possible to care at all about circumcision without prioritizing it highly enough to fit it into the limited time and money one has to go around condeming more severe forms of mutiltion. Unless anti-cirumcision groups are being called up and told to stop what they're doing based on the claim that it's a waste of time, it's just a matter of activists picking thir own battles based on personal interest, which anyone ought to be able to do.
Sure, but that's not what people ITT were doing. Someone even said something to the tune of "are you really comparing genital mutilation to a minor cosmetic procedure?"
>can't even name one
>there's more than one kind of genital mutilation
FGM includes the cutting off of labia, cutting off of clitoral hood, and lastly removal of the clit itself. Male circumcision includes many of these things, removal of foreskin, frenulum, even the glans. Do you have any idea how many guys lost their dickhead due to circumcision? Considering it's performed for 100 million people in America, vs FGM which is performed for... like 20 people in America total, which is the larger issue?
>possible to care at all about circumcision without prioritizing it highly enough to fit it into the limited time and money
YEAH IM SURE ALL THE TIME WE SPEND ON MANSPREADING IS TOTALLY WORTH IT WE HAVE OUR PRIORITIES STRAIGHT! FREEBLEED GURL! SLUTWALK IS PINNACLE OF RIGHTS PROTESTS IN AMERICA! BODY POSITIVE I WAS BORN FAT #bodypositive! MMMM LOOK AT ME GARGLING DIARRHEA! NO TIME FOR BABIES BEING MUTILATED BECAUSE THEY'RE MALE, BUT WE HAVE PLENTY OF TIME TO FOCUS ON MAKING LE FUNNY "JOKE" HASHTAGS #killallmen #maletears HAHAHA SO FUNNY! KEKERS I ABORTED BECAUSE IT WAS BOY #shoutyourabortion
This is why no one likes fucking feminists, kill yourself.
You want people to commit suicide because they don't care enough about circumcision, but "feminists are the hateful ones."
You're not helping by stamping your feet and shouting, lad.
>Liberals are terminally retarded.
Conservatives are the ones who try to pretend like school shootings are a mental health issue rather than a gun issue. So this is probably not put out by liberals.
And liberals are the ones who honestly think there's nothing wrong with our public education system.
I have never talked to a single liberal who thinks that, and I talk to a lot of liberals.
No I want you to kill yourself for pretending you're helping people when you're directly hurting them, and then expecting people to believe your bullshit.
Honestly what do you thin is going to help? It's a cult, and like all cults you're not going to change their minds with kind words and reasoned replies.
You can point out internal inconsistencies in their beliefs all day and they won't give a damn, "how can you be sex positive yet complain about naked women in video games" you might say, to which they'll answer "stop raaaapiiiing meeeeeee".
They reject stats proving everything they believe is bullshit. They reject stats proving they don't speak for women. They keep pretending like they're doing some feel-good shit when they're consistently acting like monsters.
You're not going to change their minds.
>1. The leader and group are always correct and anything the leader does can be justified.
Cue screenshots of Stone bending over backwards to defend the UN meeting until the bitch with claws in his brain said something bad about the UN conference, now he's all fine with criticizing it.
They're not seeing the doublethink, they don't realize the thing they hated 4 minutes ago is shit their mainlining now, they are thoroughly brainwashed.
There are only three options with a feminist:
And the third one requires physical access for an intervention.
This is the most hilarious post in the thread.
82% of Americans agree with him you know.
What's that supposed to mean?
Check your privilege fascist.
Aww, look how he tries to use big people words he doesn't understand! Couldn't you just eat him up?
That's not what gets the attention or fudning of the huge international aid organizations that do the actual work needed to prevent female genital mutilation, not just talk about it on the internet.
And here I thought deprogramming was a generally discredited practice.
Not among conservatives. They're the ones who think you can "pray the gay away."
>all conservatives are bible-humping old people who hate minorities and women, also they swim in money
This is why I fucking hate politics, because faggots like you can't even comprehend the idea of a middle ground.
>claims not to hate minorities
>uses fag as a slur
I give up. Liberals literally are the stupidest people in America.
And yet you'll post here for the next 3 months, complain about everyone who isn't in complete lockstep with you, claim this place is "insufferably liberal", and do pretty much everything except fuck off.
>Cue screenshots of Stone bending over backwards to defend the UN meeting until the bitch with claws in his brain said something bad about the UN conference, now he's all fine with criticizing it.
I didn’t defend the UN meeting or the report created for/by it; I was asked to watch the parts of that presentation where Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn spoke, and I gave my opinion on what I heard in their speeches. Nothing more, nothing less. I didn’t even pay the UN report any mind because I figured it was just another “hokay, here are the problems, and here are some ways we might be able to do a little tiny something about it” sort of thing—well, that, and it’s the fucking UN, so…yeah.
Oh, and I don’t pay attention to anything Sarkeesian and Quinn say until someone else brings it up. Remember how I had to be prodded into watching the UN meeting? If “the bitch”—whichever woman you meant—truly had “claws in my brain”, don’t you think I’d have kept up with everything she said well ahead of posting about her here?
But apparently I'm some self-hating gay because I'm not a feminist or some shit.
I just saw an Aquarion episode the other day that was about this. Nobody really means "Kill yourself" when they say "Kill yourself" online, it just means you're stupid. But because it is in writing, it can mean other things to other people. I don't think this applies to feminists, though, since they still talk that rudely online. It seems hypocritical to post like "kill yourself" to people, but when it happens to you you act like a victim.
File this under the "masculinity causes school shootings" label.
Sort of depends how you use it. If it's like "Well I'm a fag, but even I think that girl's hot" (or something like that, where it's just a self-identification thing, the way many black people use the word "nigga"), it's one thing. But when you use it as a slur against other people, you're using anti-gay hatespeech. Whether or not you're self-loathing intentionally, doing so is perpetuating a culture of homophobia. So like maybe you're not self-hating, just self-sabotaging.
I really don't give a shit, I am more complex than what I choose to fap to. Liberals are faggots because they act like huge fucking assholes and whiny cunts to people for no reason.
>Liberals are faggots because they act like huge fucking assholes and whiny cunts to people for no reason.
So you're a liberal is what you're saying.
Okay, but here's the thing: you're using "faggot" as shorthand for "something I hate." Your way of describing something as worthy of hate is to compare it to homosexuals. Do you not see why that's self-defeating as a homosexual yourself?
Yes, you are more complex than who or what you have sex with. But you are intentionally propping up language designed to denigrate people like yourself and consider them among the most contemptible things imaginable. if you're *not* self-loathing in one sense or another (even if it's just being ashamed of what you masturbate to), you're someone who doesn't think through the effect their words have.
Nope, not really lol
>File this under the "masculinity causes school shootings" label.
Holy shit the link you posted even says WARPED VIEW OF MASCULINITY.
MASCULINITY AS A CONCEPT IS NOT THE ISSUE, IT'S PEOPLE HAVING FUCKED UP AND NARROW-MINDED VIEWS ON HOW TO BE A MAN.
>MASCULINITY AS A CONCEPT IS NOT THE ISSUE, IT'S PEOPLE HAVING FUCKED UP AND NARROW-MINDED VIEWS ON HOW TO BE A MAN.
That's what "toxic masculinity" means, numbnuts. It's not a movement against being male, it's a movement against the toxic, warped brand of masculinity that society, and especially 4chan-influenced nerd society, promotes.
Yeah really, lol. You're free to plug your ears and pretend your actions don't have greater ramifications, but ultimately not only are you promoting hate against gays, you're also giving people who hate gays a cover to hide behind when they say things like that "See? Even faggots hate faggots!"
It doesn't surprise me though. Conservatives, whether straight or gay, don't really think about how their actions affect anyone other than themselves.
>pretending to be an authority on which words are appropriate and how they should be used
You're a conservative, you realize that right? Get in a time machine and go back to the Victorian era where you belong.
Also lold at
>conservatives are inconsiderate of other people
>but you should think and do exactly what i say!
If that was the case why didn't feminists address toxic femininity first? It's something they deal with every day and I would think that would be their first priority. Oh they didn't do it because you're full of shit? Because it is an attack on men? Oh ok, thanks for clearing that up, I'll stop manspreading, mansplaining and manexisting now, because feminists totally aren't attacking men.
Shouldn't you be telling black people to stop calling each other nigga?
That's a bit like arguing that calling someone or something "cunt" is comparing it to a vagina (which some people will argue but I think that's dumb). Cunt, faggot, etc are pretty much just Bad Things nowadays--the association to homosexuality isn't relevant or mostly even thought of anymore. In fact, the only people I've seen seriously use the word "fag" to refer to gay people in the past like, 2-3 years, are the WBC.
Stuff like "tranny," on the other hand, I could see arguing against, and I would agree with you there.
I don't really have to because most of them don't use it in a hateful way--and those that do tend to get called on it. Chris Rock for example has gotten called on, and later admitted that he shouldn't have said, his old routine about using the word to refer to people of low class. And Dave Chapelle ended up quitting over the way some of his humor was used by racists to support their viewpoints. Admittedly, both of those two are liberals--if they were conservative they would probably just whine about it instead of actually apologize or attempt to change things about the way they communicate their ideas.
But I guess I've never heard anyone say "dude quit being such a massive tranny" when they got camped in CoD.
Ultimately I feel like it boils down to the evolution of language. Slurs are only really slurs as long as they're relevantly used as slurs.
"Nigger" is still a slur because a LOT of people use it as one still, and hearing someone call someone else one as a General Bad Thing makes me cringe.
"Teapot," on the other hand, while a pretty darn antiquated slur, I only know as a slur because I looked it up--I have never heard a Yurop call someone that as a racial deal, always just been a generalized insult. For a more relevant US-oriented one, "greaser," as in the style. Slicked back hair, white tank top, jeans and boots? Racial stereotype. No one really knows that or uses it as one, therefore, I would no longer consider it a slur.
I don't see you ever coming to our defense
The context of the discussion we were having matters. He wasn't using faggot as a term of endearment like nigga frequently is.
If he was using faggot as a term of endearment instead of a derogatory, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
>If that was the case why didn't feminists address toxic femininity first?
They have. I'd argue that regressive ideas like women only belong in the kitchen and are to make babies is pretty shit. Hell, any woman that wants to shit on another woman for not being up to standard of womanhood based on some arbitrary shit...I'd argue that's pretty toxic.
You are *really* butthurt about this. It's been explained to you multiple times what toxic masculinity is, but you keep taking it as some sort of attack on your person, or that it's an attack on any of us men here. Honestly, it's probably best that no one bothers to respond to you anymore. You keep ignoring all points being made (and ignoring all points being made in sources that YOU are citing in this very thread) and you're really running out of places to stretch this argument out before it tears completely.
>I don't see you ever coming to our defense
You don't know anything about him outside of what he's posted here.
>stay at home mom
Jesus christ, feminists are nuts.
You're talking to more than one person, faggot. Literally whining about "faggot" on an imageboard. Kill yourself fag.
Was it harassment?
Yeah, he wasn't saying "What's happening, my faggot," he was saying "You're a faggot for disagreeing with me." That is definitely using it as an insult.
And in America at least, "cunt" is definitely considered a gendered insult designed to show contempt for women, Slowpoke. You can disagree with that all you want, and it doesn't surprise me that you do given your opinion on other matters, but it's a fact of life. "Cunt" is a hateful word in the country and culture you live in, as is "faggot," as is "nigger." But I am sure you already know this. I am sure that people who argue that these words "aren't so bad" look around before they use them to make sure the people who they're insulting with them aren't in the room at the time, unless they're the type of asshole that likes to start arguments with strangers in public, in which case there's no hope for that person anyway.
Pic related holds the truth. Liberals please stfu.
This is retarded. Calling someone a cunt doesn't mean you hate women. It means you think that person is a cunt. Does calling someone a dick also mean you hate men? By the way, retarded is also an "offensive" insult according to you people. I bet you'll flip out over that too. god, when did people become so faggy?
what's it like having such godawful reading comprehension
Usually people who stick up for stay at home moms get accused of trying to "force" women to stay in the kitchen. Nobody seriously thinks that, just that most women would be happier being moms like they're supposed to instead of being "empowyred" and angry.
>You can disagree with that all you want
I do, but that's fine man. It's pretty subjective and heavily relies on the type of person you see in day-to-day life, so you're every bit as entitled to your interpretation and word-based morality as I am to mine. No contention, friend.
>but it's a fact of life
so if you had read my post, you would have seen my word choice and saw that i'm arguing against pigenholing people into these roles
nowhere did i say or imply that women could not be homemakers. i don't know what anything you just said has to do with my post, because, well, i'm talking about giving people the freedom to live how they want.
you are either awful at reading comprehension, stupid, not a native english speaker, or in so much of a rush to shitpost that you didn't even bother to read
>Nobody seriously thinks that
and for that matter, no one actually thinks the earth is 6000 years old either!
Actually the word cunt is considered pretty offensive and hurtful. If you disagree, tomorrow when you go out, call literally every woman you see, even those you don't know, a cunt. Tell me how that goes.
And that's not "his interpretation" of how the word is seen. I find it odd that someone who's always going on about how he apparently leaves the house somehow doesn't realize that the word cunt is considered a hurtful, gendered insult in the US.
>Actually the word cunt is considered pretty offensive and hurtful.
I have not seen anyone argue the contrary, friend. It's an incredibly offensive word.
Is it a comparison to a vagina? Nah. Is it a comparison to a woman? Nah. It's just a Very Bad Thing.
>I find it odd that someone who's always going on about how he apparently leaves the house
I don't think I've posted outside of +/pol/ in at least a couple months. Wait no, I posted in /jam/ a week or two ago.
Sounds like you've got a bit of a vendetta, m80.
The word cunt isn't offensive and hurtful to non-women though. And if I used the word around my woman friends, they wouldn't care. Evidence being I actually have. Because they know I'm not using it in a derogatory manner towards women. I'm just calling someone a cunt.
Stop reading so deep into shit nobody cares about.
Well what are you saying? I read your post and while I'm tired, it's not entirely clear what you're conveying. And it's not a vendetta. Pointing out something that seems odd. And it is odd.
>And if I used the word around my woman friends
You don't really understand context, do you?
>Stop reading so deep into shit nobody cares about.
Yes, that's exactly why you decided you post about this.
Are you seriously citing Michael Scott as a role model for social interactions? Next you'll be citing Archie Bunker as a political hero.
The original point was that nowadays, calling someone a fag wasn't saying "you're like a homosexual, which is a bad thing to be." It's just an insult.
Calling someone a cunt isn't saying "you're like a vagina, which is shameful and bad." It's just an insult.
>And if I used the word around my woman friends, they wouldn't care.
"I have a female friend who lets me slap her ass, so that means it's not harassment to slap a woman's ass."
Ok, how the fuck is that a good example? Chris Rock and Dave Chappelle are celebrities. They have PR managers. If they do something that upsets people, they are literally told ("suggested") to apologize for the sole purpose of damage control. If it were truly up to them individually, they'd say "Fuck 'em."
Are you high? Dave Chappelle practically ruined his career when he did what he did. His managers in no way told him to break his contract and fuck off to Africa.
No, you stupid fucking retard, because that's directly doing something to a woman. Saying the word "cunt" to a woman WHO IS A STRANGER, is a bad thing. Just like how it's bad to call retards retarded or gay people fags. But used generally, as an insult, it's fucking fine. The word "cunt" does not contribute to a misogynistic society. It's so miniscule and diminished at this point that there is a general tact rule in place around women and that's literally it.
(Psst. Dude. You're talking to strangers right now and calling them faggots and retards and cunts.)
>calling someone a fag wasn't saying "you're like a homosexual, which is a bad thing to be."
What? But it was. That's how it became to be an insult.
You're not very familiar with the situations he's talking about. Neither of those men backed down from their routines because of the heat they recieved. They did some self reflection and decided not to do that material anymore because it was being used by racists, and they, themselves, as the comedian/artist/whatever didn't care for that.
Hell, Dave Chappelle straight up left his show in the middle of a season because he wasn't feeling it. This wasn't some PR stunt to appease offended people.
On an anonymous imageboard they can't see my face on, and I can't see theirs. Also it's blatantly obvious I'm not using said words in a derogatory manner. Also yes I'm sure some of you are literally mentally handicapped.
>The word "cunt" does not contribute to a misogynistic society.
How do you feel about the word "nigger"?
"Nigga" does not contribute to a racist society, while "nigger" does. "Squads" with both black and white people in them call each other "nigga" regardless of skin color, because the word meaning has changed. Whereas I've actually seen a black man get upset when another black man said "nigger" instead of "nigga". That's how big the difference is.
I'd still disagree, but whatever.
On 4chan, I think you can make that argument, but everywhere else I still feel a twinge of good old fashioned homophobia.
I wasn't talking about nigga vs nigger.
I'm just getting a gauge for what words are still considered harmful. Because I'd still argue cunt is very gendered. The majority of the time I hear it, it's saved for a woman that people feel a great deal of disdain for. And that's just kinda shitty to me, mostly because of the reasons some people have disdain for women. It's not always justified, so use of the word gets an eyebrow out of me a lot of the time.
Good, society should be a little more racist. They're forcing Germany to accept 1.5 million refugees this year. That's insane! We could stand to be a little more like Japan on this issue.
Nobody forced Germany to do anything. They did it themselves. And good for them. It's the first non-fucked-up thing they've done in international politics in like ten years.
>On an anonymous imageboard they can't see my face on, and I can't see theirs.
How does that change the fact that this does not count as private exchanges between friends who know one another's boundaries and have already given consent about how to be spoken to? You yourself brought up the fact that you know you can't slap random women's asses even if your female friends let you get away with it because you don't know that person and haven't established a relationship whereby that sort of behavior is acceptable, and even that calling a random woman on the street a cunt was unacceptable behavior for the same reason. So you recognize the difference imposed by context, and that while calling your friends who have said they're fine with it cunts doesn't contribute to misogynistic society, calling random people on the street cunts might very well do so.
But you *are* calling random women (and men) who you don't know cunts, and random homosexuals (and heterosexuals) you don't know faggots. We have witnessed you doing it. So even by your own principles, your behavior is unacceptable and contributes to the toxicity of modern society.
>Using words as insults
>"Not a derogatory manner"
I'd really like to believe that you're a troll and not actually this incapable of self-awareness.
>The word "cunt" does not contribute to a misogynistic society.
I can confirm this.
I personally don't interpret 'faggot' as homophobic due to seeing it so often on 4chan used as a general insult, the same way that calling someone a douche, cunt or an asshole doesn't remind me of those objects.
he means 'not in a legitimately insulting manner', like the way that my best friend calls me a 'slimy cunt'. Due to context, it's not actually an insult.
Just call him retarded, you baby.
I identify as a toddlerkin and you hurt my feelings :(
If you're toddlerkin, I would think you would revel in the opportunity to cry about something.
Or if you're conservative for that matter. They're effectively the same thing, after all.
>Jesus christ, feminists are nuts.
Now you're catching on.
Here's another from just 14hrs ago: LARGE BICEPS ARE TOXIC MASCULINITY, SEXISM FUEL
They're coming out constantly, I can't even imagine the bubble it takes to shield from all these truth bombs.
Explain, without weasel words, how European Union taking millions of non-European immigrants in the next 365 days is a good thing.
Keep in mind European Union has a general 11% unemployment rate, which is about 50 million people overall.
Some parts of Europe are collapsing due to unemployment as we speak.
How is putting more people in that situation good.
Well, for starters, 'European Union' isn't one big economy, so someone's already being disingenuous in this conversation. Greece is fucked. Germany is doing fine (in large part because they fucked over Greece in order to protect their banking system). Fortunately, nobody's advocating for flooding Greece with refugees.
I've noticed that all of the websites you link are notoriously conservatively biased and frequently accused of having zero journalistic standards and even outright fabricating stories. Peculiar.
>an economic union is not one big economy
The question is, if Germany needs workers, or if Germany wants to better some poor peoples lives, why not import the unemployed (but highly qualified) starving masses from Greece?
Do you know what the schengen is?
Because the liberal rags aren't publishing anything on it, because they have no journalistic integrity. Like this http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=6862
Oh and the liberal rags? They're not just accused of fabricating stories, but PROVEN to have done it over and over again (lol gang rape fantasies, modified 911 calls etc...).
If the articles he put forward are incorrect, feel free to provide an alternative, or point out flaws.
Attacking the source itself is kind of a fallacy.
In that case allow me to cite this article from the National Enquirer and this other one from the Onion...
The guy's a giant fucking idiot, but really I'm disappointed that everybody here still finds him worth responding to when he's already shown himself to be trolling as hard as possible.
Because politics are about discussion and acknowledging opposing viewpoints instead of whining like a baby.
This is why people are talking about Trump instead of laughing him off.
Yeah, it's getting sad at this point. He was even ignoring articles he was linking to to prove a point.
While true, there comes a point at where arguing is futile because the person is either incredibly dumb or being willfully ignorant for "ebin trolling".
Stone isn't our village idiot, tho. That title belongs to someone in this thread, a person that has no idea what he's talking about, has a hardon for a certain woman e-celeb, and even links to articles that don't prove his point.
>or cite the disclaimer of joke websites.
I'm pretty sure we just established that questioning the source is fallacious.
Questioning a source is fine, dismissing one without reason is not.
You're actually perpetrating a second fallacy by playing dumb and pretending you don't know the difference.
I gave a reason for dismissing wnd, breitbart, and the Daily Mail--they regularly fabricate stories and even when the stories are based on truth they slant them so far they're meaningless. You did not consider that valid enough reason to discount them as a source, so I see no reason to treat "It's a joke website" as any more valid.
Anyway, the National Enquirer isn't a joke website, it's a tabloid. Just like the Daily Mail and Breitbart.
I'm not Stone. You should have realized that when I decided to respond to you in less than three paragraphs.
It's not, though. The European Union is a weird-as-hell system in which certain parts of their economy (like monetary policy) are slaved together but each nation still retains their own distinct economy. Which is why Germany can be doing well while Greece is down the fucking shitter.
Also if you really think Germany's taking on refugees in order to get more workers, you are both hopelessly cynical and not thinking very hard about it.
List the reasons for dismissing the linked stories.
Seriously just saying "I don't like X so what X says doesn't apply" is kind of a really shitty thing to do.
Consider that I could say the same thing about you, and we wouldn't be having this discussion.
List the reasons for believing the linked stories. Seriously, just saying "the fact that it's written on the internet by websites known for lying and spreading misinformation means it must be true, and I have no obligation to support my point with sources who aren't known for lying and spreading misinformation" doesn't really do anything. You are the one making the claim. Backing up that claim puts the burden of proof on you.
Put it this way: if I were going to try to prove a point to a conservative, I would not link them to Salon, because I'm well aware that Salon has a bias so notorious that it makes it hard for even serious-minded liberals to believe everything they say, I would find a source like CNN or Reuters or something that actually has some credibility. The fact that you are fighting so hard against providing a credible source for your information, to me, proves that you know what you're saying is a lie.
How about "this source has a history of lying and spreading misinformation so long that it makes it difficult to trust them when they say the sky is blue"?
Anything that makes the left look bad is made up, and anyone who is not left-wing is a troll.
>Anything that makes the left look bad is made up
So…the US didn’t bomb a hospital the other day?
Speaking of, it kinda gets under my skin that Obama gives some huge "GUNS ARE BAD AND INNOCENT DEATHS ARE 100% UNACCEPTABLE" bs after every shooting but still keeps sending out blind air strikes and drone bombings.
I'm not presenting this as any sort of debate topic, just a gripe.
"Government is an institution which prevents injustice other than such as it commits itself." Ibn Khaldun
They want to ignore sources which are unpalatable, so simply start ignoring liberals. The gal who told slowpoke this earlier in the thread was absolutely right.
It's nothing new. I generally get pissed when people who have 20 armed guards go on TV to talk about how arming yourself for protection is bad.
It's like they expect a 125lb person to defend herself with her hands against a 200lb murderous rapist. Or call cops and wait 15 minutes for them to get there.
Politicians be like: "Why do you need guns for protection, why don't you just hire your own armed guards?"
Why did he win the peace prize again? I don't think anyone told me that.
>It's like they expect a 125lb person to defend herself with her hands against a 200lb murderous rapist. Or call cops and wait 15 minutes for them to get there.
Does it make your dick hard when you imagine someone trying to rape you so that you'll have an excuse to kill them? I'll bet it does. That's why people like you seem to think about getting attacked constantly. Murderboners.
If we don't think about a bad thing, it won't happen.
It we prepare for a bad thing, we're fetishizing it.
You think constantly about something that almost never happens. Rape, for example, is almost always someone you know--and non violent. It's date rape and being drugged. Neither of which a gun would help you with. You fantasize about being violently raped so you'll have an excuse to carry killing devices around to justify your bloodlust, because that's sexier to you than protecting yourself from things that actually *do* pose a risk to you, like heart disease or poverty.
>What the fuck is wrong with you?
Just trying to understand the real psychology behind people who don't feel secure unless they know they can easily murder the people around them.
>if you prepare to prevent rape you want to be raped
So if I lock my car, that means I want to have my car stolen, one doesn't follow from the other buddy, it's a pure non sequitur.
Far more likely is that you're a rapist and get triggered when potential victims start talking about protection.
So............ GET OUT OF HERE RAPIST!
Someone thwarted by a lock doesn't die. So your metaphor only works if you, say, electrify your door handle so that if anyone tries to get in they die. And if you do that, yes, you probably want someone to try to rob you because you want to kill people.
Don't come back until you study it.
This really doesn't explain anything, since the question is mostly why you only seem to think about means of preventing crime when it provides a loophole in murder laws to let you kill people.
He's not entirely wrong. Some gun owners for example live in some fantasy world where they dream of blowing off someone's head but want a legal and or justified reason to do it.
You can see this in any person who is a little too happy to have a gun for self defense. Sensible people are like "Okay, I have this thing to protect me." whereas batshit crazy gun nuts think "Oh man, I can't wait for someone to walk through my door so I can actually SHOOT someone."
And a lesson for all of you, I'm not going to respond to Mr. Right Wing Retard here when he inevitably ignores key words in my post to make strawmen. Follow my example, gents.
To wit: http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/oakland/2015/10/06/cpl-holder-opens-fire-shoplifter-home-depot/73468588/
Just stop. This is what you would do if you had a gun, it doesn't apply to everyone else.
You know how there are gun nuts who talk about how the government plans to take away everyone's guns? (I don't mean the NRA, though their rhetoric helps fuel that specific paranoia.) Such people are far more likely to buy guns and start militias and such because they believe they're some “last line of defense” between gun owners and the federal government. They’re buying guns because they envision a day when they’ll get to use those guns to “protect” themselves and others from the evil government. These types of gun nuts join groups like the Oath Keepers, which offered to protect Kim Davis from being taken to jail should a court decide she needs another weekend in county lock-up. (She and her lawyers refused the offer.) They seem to have wanted both a confrontation with government officials and a “defense against illegal government action” justification that would have let them “legally” use their guns to “protect” Davis.
Pop culture is awash in tales of violent vigilantism that often end well (or well enough) for the vigilantes—and morally justify their violence, to boot. The idea that people buy guns out of a desire to commit a “heroic” act of violence exists for a reason; we can’t ignore it or laugh at it just because it seems insane.
>how the government plans to take away everyone's guns?
Because the government does plan to take away my guns. It's been done several times in the past. There are open debates about doing it again.
Educate yourself before speaking on a topic.
Paint with however evil a brush you want, how many people are those out of the 90 million American gun owners, 50 million American households with guns? How many times per year do they do stupid shit compared to the millions of times guns save lives simply by being there to deter an opportunistic criminal.
>Because the government does plan to take away my guns. It's been done several times in the past. There are open debates about doing it again.
At worst, the gun control proposals with the broadest bipartisan political support (i.e. the ones most likely to pass if Congress would stop being a bunch of partisan cunts) would make it harder for someone to legally buy a gun. Any politician who would dare suggest taking legally-purchased guns away from citizens in this day and age would be committing career suicide.
>the millions of times guns save lives simply by being there to deter an opportunistic criminal
Most of the time, those guns are in the hands of LEOs. Stories of “good guys with guns” stopping “bad guys with guns” in places other than the homes of said “good guys” are uncommon, at best. Look at the recent shooting in Oregon: at least one other student on campus at the time was armed and carrying, but an unarmed man who took seven shots (and lived) ultimately blocked the gunman from going any further with that particular shooting spree.
There's no such thing as a good guy with a gun. There's just bad guys with guns that we can tolerate and bad guys with guns that we can't tolerate.
Never understood the idea of a citizen having a gun to thwart off criminals in public spaces.
And what happens in the following scenario? Let's use the Home Depot thing up there as an example.
>Lady sees criminals and starts shooting at them
>Someone else hears the gunshots and runs over, only to see some lady shooting at a car
With no context of the scenario whatsoever, what's to stop this man from shooting the lady? She looks like a crazed criminal (well, she is, but let's pretend she isn't for the sake of this exercise). What's to stop this lady from shooting the man? What's to stop a third party from coming on the scene and opening fire on the other two? And what happens if one of these Stormtroopers manages to hit an innocent bystander in all this? There's virtually only one time a parking lot is empty, and that's when the store isn't open.
I'm not anti gun (other countries with guns don't have nearly as many shootings as we do) but the pro gun people have some retarded arguments.
And Stone or whoever, don't respond to anyone who will come in here and willingly twist my words.
Two separate school shootings (one in Texas, one in Arizona) and an “active shooter situation” in Kentucky all happened today.
Jesus fucking Christ.
This is life in America. The gun nuts consider it preferable to a country where this doesn't happen every day, and they have more power than the rest of Americans.
I feel education might be something here.
I know sensible gun owners have no problem with stricter regulation, mostly because it *won't* effect them. The idea is that we make it harder for unhinged people to acquire guns. Removing all the guns shouldn't be the goal, but to rather make it so that it's harder for crazy people to get them. Again, I'll reference the other countries that have citizens owning guns but not as much gun violence.
But yeah, any time gun control is mentioned, we go right off the slippery slope. I know that some people want all guns to be gone, but the middle ground of gun control is to increase regulation. Which most people probably aren't going to have to worry about.
And again, watch out for Mr. Word Twister (Not to be confused with Mister Twister) intentionally warping posts.
I’ve no problem with people owning guns. I’ve a problem with people owning them for the “wrong” reasons (i.e. owning them in the hopes of one day using them to be a “hero”) or being fucking irresponsible with them. Getting rid of guns altogether is an ultra-liberal fantasy—and it’ll never come true.
>Getting rid of guns altogether [will] never come true
Even if guns are heavily restricted or banned, it still won't happen.
Yeah there's no way to do it short of the government literally coming in and taking them all away like people fear. And I question how effective that will actually be.
And there will be even less of a way to do it, I suspect, when 3D printers become more widespread.
And the government would have to expend shitloads of resources into hunting down every last gun in the country to take them all away. Such a campaign would be a logistical nightmare—and it wouldn’t account for guns that aren't on any record books or are stashed away to avoid traditional searches. (Militia members would know enough to do the latter.) The cost of human life would also have to be considered, since more than a few government agents would be killed by the crazier gun nuts.
The really hilarious thing is going to be when the NRA opposes 3D printing and the gun nuts have to do mental backflips to explain them so they don't have to admit that the NRA has never been on their side, just the side of gun manufacturers and merchants.
>Yeah there's no way to do it short of the government literally coming in and taking them all away like people fear. And I question how effective that will actually be.
I question how possible it would be.
1.2 million total law enforcement of all types (including non-combat), about 900k combat soldiers and 300k national guard. 50-90 million gun owners, so lets assume a quarter of them decide to fight back, that's 17.5 million combatants. Or about 8:1 ratio against.
In Afghanistan, allied forces outnumbered the Taliban 3:1, and the Taliban is still around. The Taliban was less equipped, less educated, and less able to strike logistics of American forces.
Even assuming all government forces are perfectly fine with taking away guns despite most soldiers and cops being gun toting rednecks, and even assuming some kind of recruitment drive... there's still too much of a gap.
Literally an impossible proposition.
Mmm, this is going to be glorious.
The real question is going to be are they going to be exposed or are people going to still eat their bullshit?
I'd settle for "ban future sales, confiscate and destroy them as they turn up". It would take a fucking eternity to get the numbers down to reasonable numbers, since they're so nuts right now, but at least it would be progress in the right direction.
America has clearly proven that it cannot be trusted with unfettered gun access.
>lets assume a quarter of them decide to fight back
The fact that we even suspect 25% of gun owners would fight against the government even when it's operating within the law is pretty goddamned terrifying. And pretty good evidence we don't screen these people well enough before selling them guns.
It's also a complete right-wing fantasy. Vast majorities of gun owners support gun control legislation.
But, uh, hey. WOLVERIIIIIIIIIIINES!
>But, uh, hey. WOLVERIIIIIIIIIIINES!
Hey, buddy, I've been playing Farcry 4 lately. Those honey badgers can fuck you up. I'm not taking any chances with wolverines. Look at those fucking eyes. He wants you dead.
Posting something a friend of mine (who owns around 30 guns of various types) posted on Facebook:
"Now, I own guns. And I enjoy owning them. But I want to point out a discrepancy.
When you purchase a vehicle in a private sale, you must sign paperwork between the buyer and seller. You receive a title for the vehicle that you must register with the government in a timely manner.Furthermore, the vehicle must be insured through an insurance company, which has information on you and charges you depending on your history. On top of that, you must also have a government issued license to operate this vehicle, which is only issued after you have been tested on your competency with a vehicle and traffic law.
When you buy a gun in a private sale, (In most places that I have experience with), you hand over the cash to the owner and you get the gun.That is all.
Now one of these is designed to facilitate transportation. The other, no matter what context you put it in, is designed to kill. Even if it is in self defense, the nature of the weapon is to kill. There is no other.
Do I have a solution? No. But maybe the difference between these two processes deserves looking in to."
He's also an advocate for mandatory firearm training for anyone wanting to buy a gun. This is what a responsible gun owner is like.
There are no gun control proposals with bipartisan support, because even modern democrats realize you don't win elections with 90 million voters against you. And literally all of those have semi auto "assault weapons" as well.
>don't have to admit that the NRA has never been on their side, just the side of gun manufacturers and merchants
We've always known that, google "fudd".
If there were more gun owners like him, America might be a little more like those other developed, gun-owning countries where mass shootings aren't the norm.
There are 200-300 million guns in private ownership, another 200 million in gun shops and stocks, there are 90 million gun owners in 50 million households. If even one percent of one percent of those decides to fuck your shit up, you lost the fight.
>progress in the right direction
>Vast majorities of gun owners support gun control legislation.
>even when it's operating within the law
Not the case, 2nd amendment is pretty clear.
Your imaginary friend doesn't own guns, you got that from a shitty facebook/twitter campaign to fallaciously compare guns to cars.
And it's so mind numbingly retarded as well, for example:
>When you purchase a vehicle in a private sale, you must sign paperwork between the buyer and seller.
>You receive a title for the vehicle that you must register with the government in a timely manner.
>Furthermore, the vehicle must be insured through an insurance company, which has information on you and charges you depending on your history.
>On top of that, you must also have a government issued license to operate this vehicle, which is only issued after you have been tested on your competency with a vehicle and traffic law.
None of this is true. A car can be sold and bought without paperwork, without having a license, without registering it, and without having insurance. I bought my CRV by giving the owners $2000 in cash.
Registration and licensing only begin to matter when you start using public roads regularly, and firearms which are carried in public have a similar system.
Once you have read it, for trying to so obviously lie to people and failing so hard at it, drink a pint of bleach.
Armed people fighting the government if the government ever tries to take their arms is somewhat encouraged by both the constitution and the people who wrote it.
Was anyone in here arguing against that? It could be in that mountain of bullshit in that post above yours that I'm not reading, so I'm not sure.
It does encourage it, but we gotta keep in mind that it was written to reflect the technology of the time period. There's no way citizens are going to fight back against the US army now. It's been this way for...shit, a long time. Hell, tanks have been around for 100 years at this point, and those things scared actual soldiers shitless on the battlefield. And don't get me started on aviation attacks, drones, and God knows what other kind of toys the government have at their disposal. And speaking of what the government has at their disposal, it's laughable to think that the average gun owner has the same amount of firearms training that a soldier does. Even without tanks, drones, attack helicopters, and bomber jets, it would likely be a curbstomp battle to take them on.
It's in the post I replied to, lad. He implied that no one who would fight the government if the government tried to take their guns, deserved to have guns.
Yeah, my bad. I dunno why, but I didn't see a link on that post. It's probably time for bed.
Oh, and as an aside, I'm curious to how many people would actually fight the government if given the chance. I know some people have a habit of talking like their dick is bigger than it is, but run hiding when the shit starts to go down.
I don't deny that some people would fight. Just curious as to how many, and I pray we don't see the day.
>Armed people fighting the government if the government ever tries to take their arms is somewhat encouraged by both the constitution and the people who wrote it.
It's actually not, but that's certainly the narrative right-wing radio hosts suggest. Anyway, if this were happening we can assume that the constitution was amended in the first place, so even if the Constitution *did* say that (which it doesn't--the Constitution says nothing about right to bear arms beyond doing so to maintain a well-regulated militia), it wouldn't when the guns were being confiscated.
If that happened, the gun nuts would be shooting people because they don't believe in democracy.
Guess one of my best friends for the past 12 years doesn't exist. Glad someone finally told me.
Hardly anyone has a concealed carry license, which is part of the point he was making. People should be forced to train with and register any gun they buy. Being able to buy and sell guns without any sort of paperwork involved (private sales) is absolutely retarded.
>If even one percent of one percent of those decides to fuck your shit up, you lost the fight.
Stop living in a fucking fantasy world.
Polling has consistently shown enormous support (up to 85% in many cases) among gun owners for gun-control measures which the NRA stringently opposes.
Stop living in a fantasy world.
>Not the case, 2nd amendment is pretty clear.
Yes, it is.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
It's not the right to fucking own whatever gun you want without limitations.
Stop living in a fantasy world.
>A car can be sold and bought without paperwork, without having a license, without registering it, and without having insurance. I bought my CRV by giving the owners $2000 in cash.
I have news for you, if the title was not transferred to you then you do not fucking own that car, legally speaking.
And really, concealed carry as an equivalent to the paperwork involved in car ownership? Let's unpack that piece of dumb bullshit for a moment.
1. There are no states which do not require vehicle registration (for the use of public roads; we'll get to that in a moment). There are eight states in which no concealed carry permit is required at all. There are also a few states where you can do it without a permit with some limitations. There are also a bunch of states where concealed carry permits are so easy to obtain that you can pretty much get one by faxing a piece of ID to the office along with a picture of your dick.
2. The idea that vehicle registration is optional because you only need to do it to drive on public roads is laughable. Unless your vehicle is only going to be driven on racetracks, or is a go-cart to be used to travel between the multiple mansions on your enormous property, or is a fucking tractor, if you ever want to actually use your car you need to use public roads to get wherever you're going. These exceptions apply so seldom that in practice all vehicles used by regular consumers are registered.
3. If you're driving around with no registration, the fact that you are is visible. You can and indeed are eventually likely to get pulled over for driving around on public roads with expired tags. Meanwhile, concealed carrying a gun with no or an expired permit is invisible - and in fact, in some severely fucked-up jurisdictions, it is actually illegal for police officers to question your concealed carry status. If you say that you have one, and are not currently committing a visible crime, they don't have the right to ask you to show it.
4. Even if the concealed carry permit system was a good equivalent to the vehicle licensing system, that wouldn't change the fact that car owners are required to purchase insurance to cover damage and liability which they might cause (inadvertently or otherwise) through the use of their hardware. As far as I can tell, there is no jurisdiction anywhere in the US which requires this.
5. Even if the concealed carry permit system was a good equivalent to the vehicle licensing system (which it isn't), and even if gun owners were required to carry insurance (which they aren't), that still wouldn't change the fact that GUNS ARE NOT CARS! And before you say 'hurr hurr, that's why it's a dumb analogy', remember that the point of the post wasn't to say that guns and cars are equivalent, and should be treated equivalently - it was to say that hey, we have to jump through all these hoops with cars for society's protection, meanwhile guns serve no purpose but to be deadly weapons, so WHY AREN'T THE REQUIREMENTS FOR OWNING AND OPERATING THEM EVEN MORE STRINGENT?
Stop living in a fantasy world. Or, you know, keep beating off to the sight of your gun's sexy sexy barrel.
>Stop living in a fantasy world.
Afghanistan war is a MMO. Protip: A police state can't be maintained with tanks, machineguns or drones. Taxes can't be collected with a submarine or a jet fighter. Speech can't be suppressed with a frigate.
I generally post sources when I make claims like that, for example
57% believe it protects people, 52% say expand gun rights instead of constrict them.
You're not getting a constitutional change, no way no how, this is why you're trying to circumvent democracy.
>A well regulated Militia,
>A well regulated Militia,
>A well regulated Militia,
Regulated means trained retard, not regulated by government.
>There are no states which do not require vehicle registration
There are no states where driving a car is completely banned, but there are states where concealed carry is illegal.
>Unless your vehicle is only going to be driven on racetracks
Most guns are only used at the range, at home, and on private land for purposes of hunting.
>the fact that you are is visible
Enact a law where people carrying a weapon must wear a pink hat. In fact you should run for congress on this platform.
>car owners are required to purchase insurance
Which never actually covers anything, and if you ever use it the thing fucking triples. Do you even own a car?
>vehicle licensing system
And again, this is only valid because cars use infrastructure which was paid for by taxpayers. If you want to start licensing guns, then I can buy whatever gun I want (same with cars) and carry it around in the open while shooting it everywhere as much as I want.
>but we gotta keep in mind that it was written to reflect the technology of the time period
Just like first amendment doesn't apply to radio, televison or internet, right?
>There's no way citizens are going to fight back against the US army now.
Again, we out numbered Taliban 3:1 and they still won, tanks and drones can't win an insurgency.
A modification to the constitution can only be suggested with a 66% vote, and the change only carried out with a 75% vote for, which ain't gonna happen in the case of gun bans. There are simply too many people who own guns, more people today own guns than drank alcohol before the prohibition
>Being able to buy and sell guns without any sort of paperwork involved
And yet this is what happens with cars as well. The registration is really only there for anti-theft measures, and the licensing is only there so the money charged for it will go to repairing infrastructure. Also I'm pretty sure we can buy whatever car we want, in whatver horsepower class we want, money permitting.
Tell your imaginary friend it's a shit analogy.
Keep trotting out these old ass arguments which have been debunked millions of times tho. Quick question:
Q: Why do you think the police doesn't do this shit to Tea Partiers?
A: Because they're all fucking packing.
There is a HUGE difference in how the government reacts to you if you have a means of resistance, versus not. This isn't paranoia, it's an everyday fact.
>old ass arguments
Oh and before someone brings up "gun violence" and starts talking about muh safety.... there is no correlation between guns and homicide number, guns and violence, guns and rape, or guns and suicide.
This post is almost completely gibberish, but hey, here's a few of the notably coherent (but wrong) points argued down.
>Regulated means trained retard, not regulated by government.
1) No, looking at all of the OED examples listed there, it pretty clearly means well-managed. Such as, you know, by government regulations.
2) That still wouldn't get around the part where the statement 'the right to bear arms shall not be infringed' is still very clearly in the context of an organized militia.
>There are no states where driving a car is completely banned, but there are states where concealed carry is illegal.
Reminder: the district of columbia is not a state.
Also, what does this have to do with the price of fish, exactly?
>Which never actually covers anything, and if you ever use it the thing fucking triples. Do you even own a car?
1) Yes, I do.
2) That is the whole fucking point, you goddamn tool. Half of the function of the mandatory insurance policy is to price irresponsible jackasses out of the market. The more of an irresponsible jackass you are with your vehicle, the more expensive owning a vehicle becomes, until eventually you can't afford one anymore.
>Also I'm pretty sure we can buy whatever car we want, in whatver horsepower class we want, money permitting.
That might have something to do with the fact that a more powerful engine doesn't actually make a car much more dangerous. You can still only crash it once.
Oh and by the way: the fantasy world you are living in is one where there would actually be an insurgency over gun ownership. That will never happen, outside of a few isolated pockets of survivalist nutcases.
Aaaand international homicide by firearm.
International stats are publicly available, so if you have excel or another spreadsheet program you can easily duplicate this if you're curious.
>1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-managed clock and a true sun dial."
Are you retarded?
Every constitutional scholar disagrees with you, as does the supreme court.
>what is an honest accident
>what is someone backing into me and me ending up blamed
>more powerful engine doesn't actually make a car much more dangerous
Yes it does, more engine power means more momentum during the crash. Or do you think cannons should be legal because they can only be fired one at a time, like a rifle.
>where there would actually be an insurgency over gun ownership
We had an insurgency over booze, you dumb motherfucker. You're living in a fantasy world if you think you can actually do mass gun confiscation in America.
You sure love that word, I guess because it lets you attack an argument without having a single thought behind the attack.
But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, explain why are these statistical comparisons "gibberish".
There are many constitutional scholars who do not disagree with me. Like, for example, the four supreme court justices on that case who are not naked right-wing ideologues.
And while I may not be a constitutional scholar myself, I am a scholar of the English language. Taking 'well-regulated' to mean 'trained' in the context of those OED examples is very obviously stretching.
>Yes it does, more engine power means more momentum during the crash.
To a certain extent. But any vehicle that can reach highway speeds is going to be capable of causing a big crash that will kill and damage anything in its path (reminder: engine power only means how fast it gets up to a certain speed, not the amount of kinetic energy involved when it's moving at that speed). Whereas if you compare the number of people you can kill per second with an AK47 versus with a bolt-action rifle...
>We had an insurgency over booze, you dumb motherfucker.
You have a funny definition of 'insurgency'. We had a boom in organized crime over booze. That is not an insurgency. And I dare say that booze is a good deal more universally popular than guns, especially given that rates of gun ownership are notably dropping in America - the number of total guns is going up, but they're in fewer and fewer hands.
They're gibberish because they mean nothing. There is no dependent and independent variable. The numbers on display have nothing to do with one another. It's just awful statistics work.
>Implying that you can get universal agreement on anything by any group of scholars, of any size, in any discipline, ever
Hoooee, you've said some silly-ass things this thread, but that one sure takes the cake.
>Any scholars who disagree with me are right-wing ideologues!
For people ITT in favor of commonsense gun control, rank these guns in terms of most to least dangerous.
>There is no dependent and independent variable
Are we looking at the same graphs?
>A modification to the constitution can only be suggested with a 66% vote, and the change only carried out with a 75% vote for, which ain't gonna happen in the case of gun bans. There are simply too many people who own guns, more people today own guns than drank alcohol before the prohibition
That is completely irrelevant. We are talking about a hypothetical scenario in which guns were actually confiscated, which would only happen if all those unlikely things you just cited happened. So yeah, it's not going to happen, but gun nuts still jack off to fantasies about it happening so they can be rebels and shoot at "the government."
>still jack off to fantasies
Are you the same guy who accused that girl of fantasizing about being raped and killing someone?
How the fuck is it even possible to confuse foreboding and fear for a sexual fantasy, that's some Freud-tier logic.
>that's some Freud-tier logic
You *do* feel insecure unless you're carrying a hard phallic object that ejaculates deadly semen when touched the right way.
And when it’s not “the government”, it’s the latest societal boogeyman. Post-9/11, that means Muslims and anyone who could be mistaken for Muslims (e.g. Sikhs). I’ll catch flak for posting this link because the site’s bias is obvious as fuck, but I’ll admit to knowing that bias beforehand and post the link anyway because it does contain facts that can be sussed out from the bias:
The key quote from that article—which is a quote from the video embedded at the top of the article—is this:
>“And of course I’m going to tell everybody to utilize your Second Amendment in case we come under that much-anticipated attack,” Ritzheimer says in his video.
Those right-wing nutjobs don’t fear an “attack” or fear having to use their guns as a means of protection; they’re actively anticipating—and sometimes trying to provoke—an “attack” so they’ll have all the excuse they need to deliver a “Second Amendment remedy”. These whackjobs want to shoot and kill other people; what they want more is an excuse that’ll let them escape jail time for killing someone.
I only ever see libs gloat about "the government has drones and tanks, they can kill all you stormweenies".
Long as you understand that you forfeited your rights to complain about other people's sources fam
are you trying to argue that citizens with some handguns and rifles are going to fight against tanks and drones
dunno about the history of the source he linked to. biased or not, does it have a similar reputation of something like breitbart?
because there's being biased and then there's being completely untruthful
Reposting: Rank these guns in terms of most to least dangerous.
LMFAO at avoiding the question because you want to "regulate" shit you don't understand though, really exposes you.
>I only ever see libs gloat about "the government has drones and tanks, they can kill all you stormweenies".
lol too true, they salivate at the thought of government killing conservatives. They never pause to think it might happen to them...
I'm not sure how you conflated "You won't win a fight against drones or tanks." as "I want to see you die."
Honestly, if I was in the mood to see people die, I'd encourage them to fight the tanks and drones. You don't think too good do you?
Really, the whole “the government has drones and tanks, they can kill all you stormweenies” idea is about pointing out how lopsided a fight between the United States military and said “stormweenies” would be—and how the gun nuts are basically idiots for wanting that sort of fight brought to their doorstep. (Forget tanks and drones for a moment; have you seen what kind of equipment the military gives to local LEOs these days?) Those of us who bring that idea up aren’t in any rush to see people die.
Remove even the high powered gear from the equation. Go back to what I said about some of these people being more trained with firearms than the average gun-owner, not to mention things like combat tactics. Fighting against the US is just asking to have your neighborhood razed to the ground.
Uuuuh I'm not anti-gun but just for funsies
1, 3, 2?
>Uuuuh I'm not anti-gun
There's like one anti-gun anon in this thread. Everyone else at worst just wants stricter regulations. Don't give him fuel to twist all of our positions into anti gun.
Which is more dangerous between arsenic and cyanide?
Probably arsenic, being that your body doesn't really do too great at flushing it out, but you do detox from smaller amounts of cyanide.
Meanwhile people with any knowledge of guerrilla warfare and police states know nothing larger than a rifle is needed to oppose a superpower.
Even the strictest gun-grabber in favor of absolute gun bans for citizens is still only n favor of regulation, because they don't want an absolute absence of guns, they're happy with police and military having them.
Also my entire point here is if you want regulation it would be prudent to learn what the fuck you're regulating, what effects its going to have and so on. You can't rely on deeply flawed hype and sensationalism for policy decisions.
This is the kind of dumb shit that led to banning aerodynamic bumpers and side skirts on cars, because it made the cars look scary and STREET RACES THINK OF THE CHILLUNS!. Meanwhile these things actually improve fuel efficiency and banning them is severely damaging the environment.
The joke is that they're essentially the same hunting rifle dressed differently, because some people are willing to pay an extra few hundred bucks for appearances.
All three rifles are chambered in 7.62x39mm, all three rifles are semi automatic variants (same rate of fire: one per trigger pull), all three rifles are effective to similar ranges, and take magazines ranging from 5 rounds to drum mags which hold 75 rounds.
But gungraboids want to treat them differently, because one rifle is black and another one has scary angles, while the first is a happy hunting rifle.
>But gungraboids want to treat them differently, because one rifle is black and another one has scary angles, while the first is a happy hunting rifle.
It's a shame how no one fell for your trap and you had to make up people to argue with on this subject, huh?
Bwahahaa gungrabbers were given two opportunities to reply if they knew anything. Their silence doesn't mean victory, it means a very clear defeat.
This argument is pretty much over considering bradyfags (here and in congress) don't know enough about the subject to have an informed opinion on it.
It's actually because we've seen gun nuts make this same argument so many times we just roll our eyes instead of engaging. A gun is a gun. Fuck guns and fuck the cowards who need them to feel safe.
I'm not sure what gun knowledge you really need to know in the context of a mass shooting other than you can kill people more effectively with a gun instead of running around trying to slash people with a knife.
It's not as much of a "GOTCHA" moment as you think. It's also wholly irrelevant to any points being made, unless you want to show me it's easier for a murdering fucktard to get away with a mass killing using a steak knife as compared to a handgun. And if you show me this evidence, I'll rectify my position to put stricter limits on steak knives.
Imo, ban opposable thumbs. Cowardly Gamergaters and antifeminists can easily use them to strangle people, and honestly, who even needs thumbs other than stranglers and gamers?
No one, that's who.
>I'm not sure what gun knowledge you really need to know in the context of a mass shooting
>in the context of a mass shooting
So you only want guns to be restricted the context of mass shootings? It's not the only context people live in.
Guns being readily available to people in these mass shootings is an issue. A number of spree shooters acquired their weapons legally.
These fucktards bought powerful weapons completely legal. Don't you see an issue with that? I'm not talking about all gun owners, I'm talking about these murdering fucks.
You're making a spurious argument and you know it. Thumbs have purposes other than killing. Guns don't. Even if you argue that they're for killing "bad guys" instead of killing "good guys," anytime you fire a gun, it is to either kill (if your target is alive) or destroy (if your target is inanimate).
So ultimately there's always going to be a moral disagreement here between people who think killing is sometimes okay (gun nuts) and people who think killing is never okay.
I really love that you had to elaborate at the end that anyone with a belief that conflicted with yours (nuts) are in some way mentally unsound.
I love you, +/pol/. You're all such ridiculous and awful people that it makes me realize more and more how great i am.
That's not actually what I said, I just stated the facts. "Killing in self defense is okay" is a statement of "Killing is sometimes okay."
Yes but mass shootings are a media created (and defined) phenomenon, it's something they latch on because they can hype it for weeks and fill up airtime which they aren't filling with actual investigative journalism.
379 people died in media described mass shootings in the past year, out of some 10-20k homicides which we have had on average for the past 20 years. That's about 2.5%.
And half the "mass shootings" involve two or fewer people, which I personally wouldn't call a mass shooting. If we count only events where more people died than that, it drops down to 236, or 1.5% of total.
Meanwhile when we use real criminal definitions, the FBI identified 160 “active shooter” incidents and 1,043 casualties between 2000 and 2013. That's about 80 people a year, or half a percent of total homicides.
It's only an epidemic in the headlines.
>A number of spree shooters acquired their weapons legally.
And they did so by going through a rigorous criminal and mental background check. The fact remains that no criminal or mental background check is going to predict if someone is going to turn insane or criminal.
Also you're ignoring that a number of spree killers stole or otherwise illegally acquired their guns...
>lol even christians and buddhists, the biggest moralfags on the planet, recognized thats unrealistic.
There may be some Christians and some Buddhists who make exceptions to their religious doctrines for the purposes of justifying situations they want to kill in, but many if not most Buddhists do not agree that killing is ever okay, and several branches of Christianity don't accept killing under any circumstances, either--like the Amish, who won't even punch someone in self-defense.
Yes rigorous. Do you even know what it takes do buy a gun? The check lasts months for fucks sake, at this point if you want a gun it's easier to get deputized into the police force and get one free.
If you have ideas on how to better enforce the already present, already rigorous background check system, feel free to offer suggestions.
If you want to talk about expanding it to include precrime, get the fuck out.
If you want to talk about nonexistant "gun show loopholes", get the fuck out.
Anyone’s “right to kill(/harm)” would best be limited to defense of self or others—and only when a threat of violence is imminent. Of course, that's an optimistic point of view, and I'm not so dumb as to think everyone would have the same standard when it comes to “imminent harm”.
The ignorance is staggering. There is no way to have a civilization without killing people anon, quit acting like a sheltered bubble boy and read fucking book.
I could actually take the ignorance though, but the hypocrisy... you realize voting for gun control is an act of violence because your vote is ordering the police to kill people who wont give up their guns?
>There is no way to have a civilization without killing people anon
This is a retarded statement.
>your vote is ordering the police to kill people who wont give up their guns?
Do you think people are campaigning for gun ownership to be made a capital offense or something? What exactly is your damage?
>There is no way to have a civilization without killing people
>What exactly is your damage?
he's creating strawmen in an attempt to win an internet arguement
or being an ebin trole
You are assuming people will just peacefully hand their only means of self defense over. How do you think this is going to go? Everyone who says no to a confiscation is going to need to be killed by the police.
But besides the point, you're ignoring that the entire reason a police force exists is to punish people who resist a law. For example recently in the media a guy was killed for selling loosies, and everyone who voted to tax tobacco sales was partly responsible for that death. Same goes when people get killed for a nonviolent victimless crime of smoking pot, people who vote for marijuana bans are responsible for that.
When you vote for a law you are voting for killing those who resist the law, or the law is fucking unenforceable.
Moving the goal posts, aren't we? Having a police force doesn't mean the police are armed--Ireland, the United Kingdom, Iceland, New Zealand, and Norway for example have police forces that don't care firearms. And Costa Rica, Monaco, and the Vatican have no military.
Interesting how those two groups don't overlap.
The Amish don't have militaries *or* police forces.
>the United Kingdom
>police forces that don't care firearms
The safety and security of the Amish is provided by people willing to do violence on their behalf, theirs is a deeply, fundamentally hypocritical stance.
Even more so than the "hurrr killing is always bad" gungraboids in this thread.
>When you vote for a law you are voting for killing those who resist the law, or the law is fucking unenforceable.
Goddamn man, you don't think maybe that's a little extreme? The only way to enforce a law that's being resisted is to murder someone to make sure they don't do it again. That doesn't sound crazy to you.
A law enforcement system which cannot be enforce through violence (and killing) is entirely useless against criminals willing to put their lives on the line to flout the laws. Read some Bastiat or Thoreau or something, any liberal philosopher in the last few millennia.
I think the example of the dude selling cigarettes is freshest in the memories of the public. He was willing to risk his life to flout a minor law, and he was not willing to pay a fine or go peacefully into a cage. The police then performed their natural function for society - violently drag him to the cage even if it kills him.
There's also some pulp fiction movie with Rocky Balboa in it, which is spot on the money for demonstrating the flaws of this.
tl;dr supporting gun control on the pretext of "all killing is bad" is deeply flawed.... pick another pretext
Most of the people in this thread—myself included—don’t support gun control on that pretext. I know I support gun control on this pretext: “A gun is a thing meant only for killing or destroying so maybe we should be doing a better job of making sure people who can be responsible with a gun are the only ones getting guns.” Measures with broad support amongst both gun owners and non-gun owners (e.g. universal background checks, restrictions on the ability of convicted felons to buy a gun) would only make it harder, not impossible, for the average person to legally buy a gun.
Source for that “broad support” thing, BTW: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1300512
>A law enforcement system which cannot be enforce through violence (and killing) is entirely useless against criminals willing to put their lives on the line to flout the laws
You're wrong, and I don't even see a point in listing all the reasons you're wrong because your logic just doesn't follow to begin with. The fact that a criminal is willing to put their lives on the line does not mean killing them is the only way to stop them--unless you suck at law enforcement. You're just a morbid asshole.
Killing should be a last resort action taken only when non-lethal options for stopping a criminal aren’t available (or effective) and someone’s life is in imminent danger. If a criminal isn’t armed or presenting a serious danger to anyone, non-lethal options such as pepper spray or Tasers should be on the table only if the situation escalates. Trying to talk someone into surrendering or de-escalating a situation should be the absolute first thing done in any situation that isn’t “life-or-death”.
But again, that’s my optimistic thinking doing the talking for me.
>meant only for killing or destroying
And again, killing and destroying is not always evil. One death, one thing destroyed, can save many lives, many things. A gun is a unique tool of choice which allows a person to choose if they will destroy or be destroyed.
Also that is not a good source my main man, it's funded by bloomberg and various gun grabber organizations. Bloomberg pays people to protest, he puts them on buses and ships them around the country state by state to protest gun ownership.
Some serious issues with the questions as well:
>universal background-check system
>supported prohibiting gun ownership for 10 years after a person has been convicted
>2 years in prison for a person convicted of selling a gun to someone who cannot legally have a gun
There already exists bans against criminals owning firearms, there already exists a background check system, and selling to someone who can't own a gun is a felony punishable for up to 5 years in prison.
Of course most people support something which already exists. And this
>all four used guns with large-capacity magazines, allowing them to fire multiple rounds of ammunition without reloading
is straight out of a gungrabber talking point, magazine capacity is a pointless discussion because they aren't being shot by full automatics. Anyone who has shot a semi-automatic knows the difference between a revolver and a semi AR-15 with a 30 round mag is minimal.
Another reason these results are disputed is internal polling within NRA and GOA.
>NRA found that 5% of its members support the universal registry legislation.
>GOAs survey found that only 4% of its members supported universal background checks.
As well as polling by independent news organizations
>support for stricter gun control laws stands at 47 percent
And independent polling authorities like Pew
>52% say it is more important to protect the right of Americans to own guns
>And again, killing and destroying is not always evil.
This is not an argument you can win. What is and is not evil changes depending on your philosophy, and in the minds of a lot of people, yes, killing and destroying is always evil.
>killing and destroying is not always evil
Didn’t say it was, but thanks for the extra straw. Omnomnom.
>All the stats wonkery
I see your point and concede it, if only because I'm not a huge stats wonk and the whole gun control debate isn’t really a huge interest area of mine.
And BTW, I’m not a "gun grabber". If you legally bought a gun, you have the right to own it. I’m more concerned about who gets to buy a gun, when and where they can legally buy a gun, and whether they’re responsible or trustworthy enough to own a gun than I am about how many guns someone owns or any (legal) usage of said guns. (That said: if you really felt you needed a shitload of guns in your possession, I’d probably exercise my right of free association and not hang around you as much.)
Ok then, to use a less loaded word, killing and destroying is not always wrong.
>in the minds of a lot of people
These people are irrelevant until and unless they get the government to use force on me, thereby exposing their hypocrisy.
>I’m more concerned about who gets to buy a gun
As is everyone, this is why we have background checks and put people in prison for not vetting buyers.
Pic related is funny, but it's not the reality.
Firearms conventions require an ID - which they check against criminal databases and no-sell list which ATF publishes.
If a private individual sells a gun to a crazy person or a convicted felon, this is a felony in itself and the seller will go to prison when that gun is traced back to him.
>These people are irrelevant until and unless they get the government to use force on me, thereby exposing their hypocrisy.
I like how you've basically admitted that you don't think other people matter unless they attack you or get someone else to. Your philosophy isn't constitutionality, it's egotism.
>you don't think
You're mistaken, this isn't my opinion, these people are actually irrelevant.
this guy has decent vids on gun control.
Jesus Christ, it's one of those guys.
>A well educated electorate, being necessary to the functioning of a democracy, the right of the people to read books, shall not be infringed.
Who has the right to read books?
a. The people.
b. The educated electorate.
>A well functioning car, being necessary to getting to work on time, the right of the people to vehicular maintenance, shall not be infringed.
Who has the right to vehicular maintenance?
a. The people.
b. The functioning car.
>A well balanced breakfast, being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to eat food, shall not be infringed.
Who has the right to eat food?
a. The people.
b. The balanced breakfast.
LEARN GRAMMAR YOU INGRATE!
It's people like you why your intellectual betters had to stoop down and write a fucking FLOWCHART so you could comprehend a sentence.
Learn critical thinking, numbnuts.
The "well-regulated militia" part is explaining the intent behind the second amendment, not modifying the right. Limitations of the right can be interpreted based upon the intent in common sense ways. The second amendment is making it clear that the reason for making sure citizens have the right to bear arms is to maintain a well-regulated militia, not to protect against government tyranny or to make sure they can hunt if they want to or so they can shoot criminals. It's for protecting the country against the British if they attack again, or similar situations.
In other words, it explains the intent so that we understand situations where the protection is not relevant. For example, the first amendment is protection of free speech for the purposes of insuring that ideas and thoughts can be spread without interference from the government. Therefore laws that limit one's ability to speak, but not to spread their ideas, are not violations--for example yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Laws forbidding that are not violating your right to free speech because they don't interfere with the intent of the first amendment, they just stop you from being a rules lawyering jackass.
>for example yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater
WHOA WHOA WHOA WHOA WHOA back the fuck up and use a different example. https://popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/ / http://andysellars.tumblr.com/post/118731114227/fire-in-a-crowded-theater (This is why I switched to using defamation and threats of violence as my go-to examples of prohibited speech.)
I can't believe he's doubling down on being wrong lol.
>for the purposes of insuring that ideas and thoughts can be spread without interference from the government.
Nowhere is that stated in first amendment.
> Therefore laws that limit one's ability to speak, but not to spread their ideas, are not violations--for example yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater.
No... no you fucking... damn you're dumb.
Went to read an Alyssa Rosenberg column at WaPo, saw this link in the sidebar, figured it’d fit in with the gun control talk goin’ on:
Then replace the fire in a crowded theater thing with defamation. Either way.
I love that faggot. He isn't even pink pistols but he still takes the time to understand gun rights and BTFO retards on the internet.
Defamation is an assault on character, just as shooting someone is an assault on their person. Both are illegal, neither detracts in any way from the restrictions on government action elaborated in the first or second amendment.
I'll give it credit for trying but there are still lots of shitty misleading opinions in the article, it's almost as if the author couldn't succeed in shaking all the bullshit off.
It uses meaningless buzzwords like "assault weapons", which really just means semi-automatics that look scary. It claims bullets are more deadly than knife wounds, which is silly considering both kill by the same method - examination. The article pushes the idea of expanding background checks to family and friends (wtf?), or at least it implies such a thing should be desirable. Also mentioned is a statistic which claims there have been "fewer than 400" deaths with 4 or more dead, when the actual number is 158 (I guess 158 is smaller than 400). There's a claims there are fewer deaths due to gun bans and uses as a source a study commissioned by the joyce foundation, a study debunked by multiple times. It talks about the Hillary plan to have people pass background checks at gun shows or consequences for people who sell to felons, something that already happens. Talks about Obama openly stating he would use executive action to tear up the constitution as if this isn't reprehensible. A big one is it claims Australian laws are "highly effective" despite them having an increase in crime after the ban, despite there being a mass shooting on October 2nd, a day after Obama started flailing on the issue.
Comment section is great though.
Trust the cops they'll protect you.
fucking hell. While I don't support it, I can definitely see where the American "Fuck da Police" attitude is coming from. Just like that person in Utah who called a suicide hotline and was killed.
What is the logic of these police responses for people who aren't threatening others?
>i am going to kill myself
>NO LET US KILL YOU
What could possibly go wrong?
>A big one is it claims Australian laws are "highly effective" despite them having an increase in crime after the ban, despite there being a mass shooting on October 2nd, a day after Obama started flailing on the issue.
An increase in what sort of crime?
>Homicide has decreased by nine percent since 1990 and armed robbery by one-third since 2001, but recorded assaults and sexual assaults have both increased steadily in the past 10 years by over 40 percent and 20 percent respectively.
Basically when you give up guns you have a stalled decrease in homicide and a massive increase in rape and assault. To protect the lives of scumbags, law abiding people are allowed to be brutalized.
It's not a good tradeoff in my opinion.
By the way the reason I say the homicide decrease is STALLED in Australia, is because during the same period it decreased by a greater amount in America.
>There were 4.5 murders per 100,000 people. The murder rate fell 5.1 percent in 2013 compared with the 2012 rate. The murder rate was down from the rates in 2009 (10.5 percent) and 2004 (18.3 percent). (See Tables 1 and 1A.)
Since 1990 Australias homicide rate decreased by 9%, while since 2004 Americas decreased by 18%. Double the decrease in half the time.
Basically if you're interested in decreasing homicide rate, keep things as they are. It seems to work better than a gun ban...
>makes a point in politics thread
>backs it up with valid government statistics
Has this been done before?
>What is the logic of these police responses for people who aren't threatening others?
The profession attracts bullies and sociopaths.
If you want to literally torture people without being arrested or killed (cop deaths have been especially low for a long time), why not become a cop? Your co-workers will protect you in a manner not entirely unlike mobsters, and there's always a deluge of people who want to come forward to defend people who think beating an unarmed suspect within an inch of his or her life is good police work.
The police don't exist to keep people safe, their job isn't to prevent suicides, bodyguard or escort scared people, or to rescue cats from trees.
I never understand why people are calling cops to birthday parties and barbecues like their job isn't to shoot someone. Learn to only call police AKA armed people trained to shoot anyone with a threatening posture if there's someone with a threatening posture that needs to be shot.
In this case
>my mom wants to shoot herself in the head
>hurr i should call the cops
>sees one woman with object in her hand (phone)
>sees wild eyed woman holding a gun
How did she think this would go down?
This is mostly due to Hollywood misrepresenting what a cop does, and showing cops who go above and beyond the call of duty as a norm. If a regular cop tried to talk down a suicide victim with a gun in her hand, even if he succeeded he would be fired for not following procedure.
The fourth amendment is violated on a daily basis systematically by law enforcement agencies across the nation, but gun nuts still treat the second amendment like it's the right that needs defending.
You do realize that that statistical argument has about as much validity as this one, right?
Also, do you even read your own sources?
>However, victimisation survey data suggest there has been little change in rates of sexual assault, although reporting to police by women seems to have increased.
Fucking gun nuts, man.
If that's what cops in your country do, then your country's truly and utterly fucked. Here in Germany cops are heavily trained in de-escalation tactics and mediation and are traditionally called "your friend and helper". Shooting is the absolute last resort and not something they do "just to be safe".
I want everyone to take a moment to recognize the irony here that we're seeing that German police are a lot more self-restrained and friendly than the American police.
Agreed. I have personally met an ex-negotiator for the state police in my country (negotiator probably isn't the right word, she talks to suicidal people to try and stop them. Protip: she doesn't do it with bullets.)
Maybe if you regulated guns a bit more, your police wouldn't feel so fucking scared of everyday citizens.
Because no one is trying to repeal the 4th, and if someone has a good lawyer they can get off scott free if their 4th was violated.
But you're right, you should be focusing more on defending other amendments than on attacking the 2nd.
You don't seem to know how graphs work, a random relationship between pirates and GW is dumb because there's no CAUSAL LINK, but a link between CO2 and GW is ok because there is a well described CAUSAL LINK.
>violate a fundamental right to protect feelings
I love how you statists never suggest disarming the cops.
Christ, you really are a murderhobo posting from a library.
I prefer the term "literate adventurer", thank you very much.
Chafee: "I think we need someone that has the best in ethical standards as our next president! That's how I feel."
Cooper: "Secretary Clinton, do you want to respond?"
Clinton: "No." *shit-eating grin*
I’ll be saving my vote for Bernie Sanders, thanks.
So far, neither have you. Try to frame a suggestion constructively now and then, it really helps persuade people.
I'm thinking Trump tried to help sell the idea that she did best in the debate because of all participants there, she'd be the easiest for him to beat in the general election.
If Bernie doesn't win the Dem selection though, are you going to vote for Hillary or abstain?
I'll likely vote for her if only because I'd rather have a Democrat in the White House than a Republican. I’d prefer to vote Bernie, though. Even Biden—should he choose to run—would probably be a better choice.
>because I'd rather have a Democrat in the White House than a Republican
Why would you... she's worse than Jeb for fucks sake! Do you want six more wars during her presidency? She has a bigger hardon for bombing brown people than Jeb does. How about signing away our rights to corporations? She's literally paying off media to say nice things about her and to ignore Bernie!
This is why Bush got elected (twice!), this kind of team based voting is why things will never change. People would vote for evil personified if it meant not voting for the other party, never realizing that abstention is the only way to signal to the party that their choice of candidate was shit.
You're missing the point. Hilary is not as good as Bernie, but she also isn't going to overturn gay marriage rights, she's going to try to expand healthcare under the ACA, and she's going to stand up for the rights of women and minorities, whereas whatever Republican gets elected is almost certainly going to do their damndest to undo all of that. "Teams" *do* matter right now, not because "my team must win" but because "Every single one of the Republicans proudly proclaims their intention to make this country worse."
No I think you're missing the point, Hillary is literally the worst candidate, not just counting both major parties, but also counting ALL of the minor candidates. Including Vocka Flocka Flame and Vermin Supreme.
>isn't going to overturn gay marriage rights despite being against them a few years ago
>she's going to try to expand healthcare despite being against it a few years ago
>she's going to stand up for the rights of women despite thinking its funny that she got a rapist scott free
By the way how do you know she's going to do jack shit?
Because a compulsive liar said so?
A compulsive liar that has no problem with lying to congress?
How fucking gullible do people have to be...
She's going to do as the polls and her backers tell her to do. Its why she's already walking back her turn against TPP
Holy shit, you really are the densest motherfucker on the planet. THAT'S THE JOKE, NUMBNUTS
I would suggest that! There are a ton of jurisdictions in the world where the police do not walk around armed, or are strongly discouraged from ever drawing their firearm, and it works out fine for them!
>She's literally paying off media to declare her to winner!
>Provides a source which says nothing of the kind
Oh, you silly Americans.
>disarm the police
A policeman needs to be able to stop crime. In many cases, especially in a country where many civilians and criminals have guns, this requires the police to have an effective weapon. Without a weapon, a policeman has far less power and therefore ability, and cannot do his job if a person threatens them with a weapon.
If a police officer has no power, he is useless. For some people (especially some Americans), authority isn't enough, so the power to hurt, disable or restrain is necessary. That said, arming with guns isn't always necessary, tasers and other less-lethal weapons are often just as effective.
You could do like England, though, and keep most police armed with only batons / night sticks, and just have an equivalent to a SWAT team that has actual weapons for the most dire situations.
Well she's not paying off but Cooper is a part of the Clinton Foundation and helped coach her for the debate and shield her from the hard road and their fellows have entrenched themselves deeply into the DNC including the current leader.
They are going to drag her across the finish line if they can even though she's in nowhere near the same shape as Obama which was a media shaped and funneled "everyman" that prior to his in office where he could be anything the public wanted. Hillary on the other hand has the twin albatrosses of her husbands record and her behavior behind the scenes with those scandals plus her own utter disconnect when making the attempt to seem like a normal person.
They are dodging Sanders right now in the plan to torpedo him once he's the last one standing or give enough lip service to what he's campaigning on so that he'll fade back till Hillary gets the nomination. Then we'll see all her true Wall Street Bankster cred come out "TPP is the best deal for American futures" and Garbage like that.
I'm cool with that. pepper spray and tasers wouldn't hurt though. well, they would, but you know what I mean
She's going to say whatever it takes to get elected, there's no law where politicians can't make promises they don't intend to fulfill.
Do you think Trump is magically going to build a wall across the border with Mexico without it costing anything? Of course not, it's fucking ridiculous, he's just telling lies to get the racist vote on his side.
This is what politicians do!
Obama promised gun control, to date he hasn't even TRIED to do it.
He has promised transparency but has gone after whistle blowers, throwing Chelsea Manning into a hole for telling the truth, chasing Snowden across the globe so he had to take shelter in Russia.
Obama promised to get us out of the middle east, but has started multiple new wars and even taken to drone striking American children (it's ok if they're Muslim!).
He's expanded the war on drugs, expanded the TSA. He's been the easiest president on the Banks since Bush SENIOR. He hasn't opened Immigration to Mexico as he's promised.
He's done nothing on campaign finance reform and still takes big bucks from corporations like Monsanto, which Obama has personally protected and bullied AN ENTIRE CONTINENT into accepting.
I don't want eight more years of that, if I can't have the ONE HONEST POLITICIAN I'd rather have the guy with the boot on his head.
But the UK has the largest violent crime rate in the developed world, and is literally a police state where lives of minorities and the poor in the estate are ruined every day for pointless reasons. Every time this happens some poor kids chances of going to university or having a stable job and a happy life are destroyed forever.
They're literally using their laws to create a peasant underclass.
The fuck would you want to mimic that?
I didn't say I wanted to mimic that, I used it as an example of the sort of thing I want to use as a starting off point. Sometimes when an idea doesn't work the first time you don't just give up on it, you tweak it till it works. What are you, Wile E. Coyote or something?
Problem is when government goes in for that stuff its usually a situation of doubling down on the same exact things they tried before and expecting a different response. Or worse they'll put even more rules and regulations on top of the broken ones that didn't work the first time and just makes matters worse.
And coming soon after China shows how well its "Citizens Test" works, ID Cards with your Citizen Level. "Sorry Billy you are a Level 5, Can't go into London as that is for Level 3 and Above."
Then we'll get stories about a great society in London, maybe with pictures of the London Wall in the background.
Because you cannot start doing levels and have open cities those underclasses can just sneak into.
Its not like India where its a religious backed system so people believe its their past sins in other lives that make them outcasts.
How is any of that in any way related to beat cops not carrying firearms?
The reason why some British cops aren't carrying guns (most are) is because they consider bike wheels as weapons and forcibly confiscate them, while giving the owner a criminal record.
Can't have partial disarmament of police without total disarmament of the population, and by total disarmament I mean cutting off their arms.
It's a dumb idea.
Better to have police armed with guns and the people not being thrown in prison for holding a stick.
Can't in the great land of Britain, where some places of London itself have become off limits to cops due to strong Muslim presence. Oh the many articles that used to pop up of some old Muslim codger dying and finding that he had a couple of slaves. Or the articles that pop up about the still thriving slave market in the middle east migrating to Britain and other areas of Europe, but most of those are quashed as being culturally insensitive.
Point being can't focus on the real problems being that isn't PC of them so they crack down on the regular Brits in order to show they are still in control, when really they fucking aren't.
>Can't in the great land of Britain, where some places of London itself have become off limits to cops due to strong Muslim presence.
That is a fictitious story spread by idiots. Mostly American idiots who have never been to England.
We get the same here, always the case with large populations of peoples in certain places
It's not fictitious, they're just conflating the case of United Kingdom no-go zones for tourists, with no-go zones for cops. The tourist one is there because of areas where thieves are known to prey on loaded tourists.
Another thing it might be confused with are the "zone urbaine sensible" (sensitive urban zones) in France, which is a high crime area where the police pay special attention to.
Third case are zones in Germany where the austerity layoffs for police forces has left them with minimal or (in a few cases) no police presence.
In all three cases the areas are generally full of immigrants or the poor, but the police presence is completely different.
In any case these zones aren't a condemnation of immigrants, but a condemnation of governments which aren't letting the immigrants integrate.
I'd rather vote for Jeb than Hillary, at least Jeb is 1/48th black.
This was a hell of a read:
>make it illegal to leave a gun un-stored and unsecured where a child could find it.
How would this help in any way? It can't be enforced, and it can't stop the actual accidents from occurring.
>The law made adults criminally liable when children were involved in these types of shootings.
So this kid would have lost his sister, his dad because he owned the gun, and his mom for not supervising the kids or putting the gun in the accessible drawer.
Let's not make laws based on emotion.
>Let's not make laws based on emotion.
I've noticed people generally only say this when they're arguing that nothing should be done about children getting violently killed.
I've noticed that generally people only get concerned after media sensationalism produces a strong emotional response, and once they start being controlled by their feelings their version of "something should be done" invariably involves knee-jerk legislative action.
Such people would be taken more seriously if their interest in the problem wasn't generated by an emotional response that bypasses their capacity to reason, or if they suggested solutions that weren't ineffective, ignorant or outright batshit insane.
Did you read the other parts of that post? Or are you just having a reaction to the last sentence, which you feel is directed at you?
>Such people would be taken more seriously if their interest in the problem wasn't generated by an emotional response that bypasses their capacity to reason
By fedoralords who have convinced themselves that emotions are anathema to good decision making. In reality, emotions evolved for the express purpose of making us better at making decisions. Children dying violently is heinous. An emotional response to that is the proper response.
>Children dying violently is heinous. An emotional response to that is the proper response.
Emotions evolved to aid learning and social bonds, just as pain and pleasure did, but the key here is that there's a rational response to it.
If you get angry at some of your tribe dying and decide that the proper response is to kill even more of your tribe, this would be an irrational response. If you experience pain from fire and your response to this is to jam your hand deeper into the coals, this is an irrational response to it.
The legislative responses being proposed are deeply irrational and damaging.
In other words theres a difference between a rational response flavored with small amounts of emotion, and an emotional response with zero logic.
>The legislative responses being proposed are deeply irrational and damaging.
Doing nothing is also irrational and is even more damaging. In the sense that your plan is "Allow children to be violently killed, fighting against that is not worth the trouble."
Here, let's go back to the idea of gun insurance. In order to own a gun legally, you have to purchase insurance which covers damage and liability stemming from it. Insurance companies don't want to have to pay for people getting shot by toddlers (a literal daily occurrence in the U.S., happens nowhere else in the world) so they require that gun owners purchase and use a gun safe. If they fuck up and that gun gets out in the wild, their insurance rate is now so fucking high they can't afford their gun anymore.
This is like arguing that we shouldn't enact seatbelt laws because the family of that kid who just got thrown through the windshield have SUFFERED ENOUGH!!!! (tm)
No, fuck you. This is a public health concern, there are legislative solutions to at least partially remedy this, and they should be enacted.
So....the good news is it looks like Harper's out, C-24 (the "strip Canadians of citizenship" bill) will likely be repealed and weed may be legal sometime in the future. The bad news is the NDP has been set back for years and the milquetoast left-of-center Liberals will most likely not undo any of the other really bad policies the Conservatives put in place (like C-51).
Oh, and First Nations people keep getting shafted, but that's par for the course.
tl;dr: toute est fucké
Weekly Sift is biased, but the guy who writes it produces some good stuff:
Nobody is proposing doing nothing.
>In the sense that your plan is "Allow children to be violently killed, fighting against that is not worth the trouble."
Go back and read my comment, if you find me saying this I'll concede the argument, if you don't, you'll concede the argument. Fair?
And when insurance companies start arbitrarily lifting their payments for no reason, like they've done for medical and car insurance to the point where the government had to step in?
Shall not be infringed.
It would be like arresting the parents if a kid gets hurt during a car crash, and the kid not having anyone to pay his medical bills or help in the recovery. This is insane.
Also a seatbelt is something police can check so its enforceable. It's something which the people can readily use, it doesn't harm the user, and produces some positive effect during a car crash. Invent a device that does the same for guns, some kind of quick release child lock, maybe use the money from tax stamps for guns to bundle it with every gun purchase. This is a far more rational and effective solution.
>there are legislative solutions to at least partially remedy this, and they should be enacted
If this is your train of thought you need to fuck off.
>Nobody is proposing doing nothing.
You are, you fucking clown. God, gun nuts are just the worst.
You just can't help making strawmen, can you.
That's proposing doing nothing, because you are not providing us with a thing that can be implemented, you're providing us with a wish that someone else would invent something. We are providing actual suggestions, you are providing an admonishment to pray that a solution presents itself.
So using the money from tax stamps to bundle trigger locks with purchases is not a suggestion.
What would you call it then, a proposal?
>We are providing actual suggestions
>make it illegal to leave a gun un-stored and unsecured where a child could find it.
>The law made adults criminally liable when children were involved in these types of shootings.
Are not suggestions that improves safety.
They are ways to add more charges on top of child neglect for the parent has to deal with after the accident has already happened.
Band members at a Houston high school may be suspended over a fruit basket they handed over to a rival school that was seen as racially offensive.
Seven band members from Atascocita High School presented their gift to their counterparts in the Summer Creek High School band on the field before a varsity game last Friday.
The fruit basket is meant to encourage good sportsmanship.
Along with candy and a decorated bucket for Halloween was a small watermelon, coconut, pineapple and watermelon gum.
Sister station KTRK spoke to two of the Atascocita band members and their parents on Monday. The students said they never dreamed it would be considered racist.
"We didn't do anything wrong," said flutist Carolina Andaverde. "We wouldn't do that because we know better than that. Our parents raised us better."
"I'm mixed (race). I don't take offense to that. How can someone else take offense?" asked senior Alyssa Taylor.
The students have been told their punishment might include being suspended and kicked out of band.
"We weren't being racist towards them (Summer Creek). If they took it that way, we're sorry. We didn't mean any harm," Andaverde said.
"It's just not fair, not fair. They're good kids with good heads on their shoulders," said Hector Andaverde, Carolina's father.
This needs to stop.
>on top of child neglect
If losing a kid is not enough deterrent I don't think child neglect or some fine for leaving a gun unstored will do anything.
A couple years in the slammer might. Leaving a gun (or acid, or drugs) where a kid can get to them is criminally negligent. Leaving one where a kid can get to to it and the kid then dying is a few notches on the scale from intentionally killing the kid. Its inexcusable.
The last line of that post is LITERALLY you telling someone to fuck off for saying that something should be done.
This is the fucking seatbelts thing all over again. Hey, idiot, it's not going to make things safer for the kids who have already been shot, no shit, but any change you make which changes the way people interact with their guns such that they're less likely to get into their toddler's hands IS GOING TK RESULT IN FEWER TODDLERS SHOOTING PEOPLE.
And yes, that includes more consequences for letting your toddler shoot someone. What, do you think there SHOULDN'T be consequences for that? It's not always a member of the family they shoot, after all.
No it's me telling him to fuck off for thinking the laws presented are going to help anything. Learn to read.
>And yes, that includes more consequences for letting your toddler shoot someone. What, do you think there SHOULDN'T be consequences for that?
This is the core of the disingenuous argument, either I'm pro-stupid law which does not help in any way and in fact worsens the situation, or I'm pro-eating babies.
Losing a child is already the most devastating thing a parent can experience, we already have child negligence and endangerment laws, the two new laws just add an extra few counts to the prosecution.
Aside from that, they don't have any effect on the situation, before or after.
So let me present an ultimatum for a change: Either you're pro-using some of the money from tax stamps on guns to provide people with education and a child lock for their gun OR you're literally eating a baby casserole right now.
I notice you're still not offering fixes, just attacking other people's fixes and attacking other people for daring to suggest fixes.
Why do we never talk about other instances of parental negligence like this? If Mrs. Appleburn leaves a bottle of bleach out on the table every day and Suzy gets into it, nobody fucking says 'oh that poor family, they've suffered enough'. Hell, even in instances where busy parents forget their infants in cars and the child dies as a result - something that can happen to literally anyone because of how our brains kick things down the memory hole when they're juggling a lot of tasks, and which is not connected in any way to quality of parenting or concern for the child's safety - the crowds are fucking baying for their blood. But when it's a gun? Well, boy howdee. We can't say bad things about guns. That family, they've suffered enough.
>No it's me telling him to fuck off for thinking the laws presented are going to help anything. Learn to read.
The part of his post you quoted just said 'let's try to fix the situation by passing new laws'. And you told him to fuck off for that entire train of thought. You are arguing for doing nothing. Literally the ENTIRE PREMISE OF YOUR ARGUMENT is saying that when someone's kid gets into their gun and shoots themselves, there should be no legal consequences for their irresponsibility. If you take that away, you are literally saying NOTHING.
But since you can't seem to move your stupid fucking lizard brain beyond BUT THE FAMILY'S ALREADY SUFFERED, let's talk about something else that happens a lot: I don't own a gun, but my neighbor does, and our kids are friends. My neighbour is a stupid fuck who just leaves his loaded handgun in his dresser drawer. His son finds it and decides to show it to my son, because guns are cool as shit. Boom, gun goes off, and my son is dead. Because my neighbour is a fuckhead who kept an unsecured gun around the house.
Should there not be legal consequences for that? Where's my justice in your fucked-up world?
(Oh, by the way, while you're wrong that these proposed laws would do nothing, they're not the ideal laws for dealing with the problem. The ideal laws would be focused on having fewer total guns in houses in the first place. But, oh man, that'd be gun-grabbin'. What a terrible thing to consider)
Do you not know how to read, or are you selective about it? Twice he said to put trigger locks with gun purchases. This isn't a good solution though because it's already been ruled unconstitutional (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller).
>What, do you think there SHOULDN'T be consequences for that?
Wait you want consequences after it happens?
I thought we wanted to stop this from happening?
Why do you want this to happen in the first place?!!??!
You literally jerk off to the idea of a kid using a gun, don't you!
This is how you sound.
There are a variety of quick-release safes and locking gun racks (for long guns) that secure a firearm in such a manner that a child cannot readily access them while enabling the gun owner to quickly access their gun in self-defense situations. There are fingerprint lock safes, safes with hand-shaped recessed with buttons at the fingertips you can feel for in the dark, even RFID safes. You can unlock them faster than you can unlock your phone and call 911. The D.C. law banned handguns and required long guns be disassembled or unloaded and trigger-locked. A law requiring they merely be secured in a way children cannot get them, with an explicit OK for loaded guns such quick-access safes, would probably be ok with Heller. Tax-deductions for the purchase of such safes by the poor/crime victims would address the accusation that the regulation prices the poor out of self-defense.
The main reason people object to these laws is the fact that they're not enforceable without random home inspections, which would be unconstitutional. This is why a donation of a trigger lock plus raising awareness is likelier to do more good than legislation.
Also people are turned off because they know whatever law you suggest won't be the end of it. Despite passing all these laws, every one of them, every single law you can think up, there are still going to be kids who die. And when they do, people will shout in outrage "why don't you do tone more thing!".
No law is going to make the world safe, and increasing the number of laws arbitrarily is curtailing freedom. So beforehand we need to agree on the acceptable number of shot kids out of the 10,000 which die from preventable accidents each year.
> If Mrs. Appleburn leaves a bottle of bleach out on the table every day and Suzy gets into it, nobody fucking says 'oh that poor family, they've suffered enough'.
Nobody says "people who buy bleach must also purchase a safe to keep it in, random police inspections in their home will ensure they do it, and not putting bleach in the safe is a felony" either because that's retarded. The rational response to this accident would be the creation of child caps for bleach, what we already do, and what the anon is suggesting for guns.
>no legal consequences
There are already legal consequences for parental neglect and child endangerment though, explain why you think another law doing the same thing will help.
The regulation act FORCES people to put trigger locks on their guns, and mandates random home inspections PLUS a gun registry to enforce it. The first is unconstitutional and the second is strongly opposed by every gun owner.
However bundling $5 trigger locks with gun purchases is not illegal.
It doesn't even have to be a particularly strong trigger lock, if the point is just to keep kids out.
>man goes on a sword swinging spree
>"WE NEED TO BAN GUNS!"
There was a mass stabbing in china with like 50 dead, it just requires some organization. This was a terrorist attack by the Chinese version of Al Qaeda, and it was plenty successful.
People also tend to forget the most popular means of mass killing is with fire. Block the nightclub fire exit with a dime, pour some low vapor pressure accelerant, cook at 475 degrees, serve hot.
This is what people do in societies with higher gun control, they use other means to kill people they don't like. But media can't sensationalize this as some robocop, 80s style action movie rampage, so it didn't happen.