Rant: politicizing gun violence

[MalletFace]

However, as for any counter argument against gun control that is based around only the Government having firearms and using it to oppress the people.  Good news, The United States of America has already banned ownership of the following things that would be most useful towards maintaining 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state'; GPS guided bombs, high speed interceptor aircraft, artillery, combat capable tanks, shoulder mounted surface to air missile launchers, cruise missiles, attack helicopters, grenade launchers, land mines, inter-continental ballistic missiles, the GAU-8 Avenger 30mm cannon, nuclear powered 'super' aircraft carriers, and many other such things.

 

You would be surprised.

As long as the weapons have been decommissioned, some of those are not actually hard to get.

While it is difficult, you can actually get a lot of functional military hardware in the U.S. with a destructive device permit, too, but all of it will be antique or from the Cold War and Second World War.

Given enough money, time, and thought, Mr. Gunpocalypse could arm himself and his crew with enough hardware to do some damage to the government when they come snooping around to see why a bunch of people in a small area are arming themselves for war.

Edited December 2, 2015 by MalletFace

[Derin Darkpaw]

 

I say we put Operation Fuck Jersey into action immediately, because fuck Jersey. Then we can move on to Ohio.

That's it lets bomb New Jersey.

[Rukh Whitefang]

First point, why is that a stupid argument? Who says your constitution is ironclad? Isn't that what amendments are for in the first place?

Second, yes. One large scale hostage situation, with minimal casualties (two I believe) in the last two fucking decades or so since gun control was introduced. I'd look up your country's stats, but I've had a good day and don't really want to spoil that with nihilistic depression at this point.

Believe what you will, and I'll do the same.

I'm going to guess you don't know how the Amendment process even works. First the Senate and the House need a 2/3rds majority vote, the the union itself needs 2/3rds of the states to ratify an Amendment. Good luck getting 66% of the politicians to agree with one another and 66% of the voters to also agree on the same thing. In other words, not going to happen. Secondly this isn't a gun problem. Its a people problem.

Or go to a Gun show.  The vendors do not do background checks on people who purchase them plus ammunition. Guess what? That's a legal means to do it without the red tape. 

However, a lot of your "illegal guns are through swap meets where you can either trade them with friends, family, or some random guy on Craigslist who wants to trade his handgun for one like your's.

 

The government will not ban guns as much as the NRA fear mongers that "the gov'ment gonna take dem" or diehard leftist Dems scream "ban guns" until they bleed from their eyes and ears. I wouldn't say it's a constitutional right because even some people are limited with carrying a weapon due to bias, but it is so ingrained in our culture that it's like removing an organ from your body if someone dare to try it. The only thing that politicians can do is just pander and push their agenda,

State by state on gun laws. I'm not against background checks and reasonable gun laws. What I am against is outright bans like the wonderful Senator Feinstein has tried to get going in the Senate.

[Zeke]

 

State by state on gun laws. I'm not against background checks and reasonable gun laws. What I am against is outright bans like the wonderful Senator Feinstein has tried to get going in the Senate.

I am on the same page with you on banning guns. I may not be an avid user of firearms but as history serves, prohibition does nothing.

[Rukh Whitefang]

I am on the same page with you on banning guns. I may not be an avid user of firearms but as history serves, prohibition does nothing.

Oh absolutely, prohibition of guns would be an absolute disaster.

[Taikugemu]

[Kaizy]

[Rukh Whitefang]

Well seeing as whats on the news, a suspect has been I'D and he isn't a native born American. Its also worth noting that this was (at least) 3 shooters, highly irregular (I believe only has happened 2 other times) in a mass shooting event. All suspects said to be wearing body armor as well. Clearly this is not a crime of passion or an angsty mentally ill person(s). Will be watching to see where this goes. Reminds me of the North Hollywood Bank shootout from years ago (97 I believe).

[DJT]

http://rudepundit.blogspot.ca/2015/12/we-must-politicize-every-shooting.html

[FlynnCoyote]

I'm going to guess you don't know how the Amendment process even works. First the Senate and the House need a 2/3rds majority vote, the the union itself needs 2/3rds of the states to ratify an Amendment. Good luck getting 66% of the politicians to agree with one another and 66% of the voters to also agree on the same thing. In other words, not going to happen. Secondly this isn't a gun problem. Its a people problem.

I said from the beginning it was a matter of gun culture, ie: people. Well done for catching up.

Next step, realizing that people with your mentality are a huge portion of why this is a problem. Are you ready?

 

[AshleyAshes]

Well seeing as whats on the news, a suspect has been I'D and he isn't a native born American.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/san-bernardino-shooting-suspects-named-as-syed-rizwan-farook-and-wife-tashfeen-malik-after-14-killed-a6758246.html

"Farook was US born, while Malik's nationality was still unknown."

[Derin Darkpaw]

I'm going to guess you don't know how the Amendment process even works. First the Senate and the House need a 2/3rds majority vote, the the union itself needs 2/3rds of the states to ratify an Amendment. Good luck getting 66% of the politicians to agree with one another and 66% of the voters to also agree on the same thing. In other words, not going to happen. Secondly this isn't a gun problem. Its a people problem.

Just because it would be hard to change a constitutional amendment does not in any way mean it is not something we should be doing.  I have stated before just because something is difficult to do that in no way changes our moral obligation to do that thing.  Also that is very arrogant of you to assume that your opposition does not know basic facts such as this about the constitution of the United States.

[Zaraphayx]

The best part about being a gun owner is that none of these opinions matter because if anyone tries to confiscate my guns I will shoot them, lmao.

How's it feel to be powerless, you stupid hippies?

[Lucyfish]

I think it's funny that gun owners bitch so much because people want to take their toys away lol

Grow up you 5 year olds, you'll get them back when you show you can handle them lol

 

But that's besides the point, guns aren't even going to be banned. They are going to be REGULATED. Did you knoooow that the US does NOT habe a national registry of firearms? And I quote, from the ATF when my girlfriend reported her rifle missing:

"If you are an individual needing assistance in obtaining a serial number for a firearm, ATF is unable to assist private citizens in locating serial numbers as there is no national registration system." FROM THE ATF THEMSELVES.

Edited December 3, 2015 by Lucyfish

[Kaizy]

[Spot]

God bless gun nut America! :') If I ever come for a visit, I'm gonna shoot AK's and .50 cal rifles a-a-and drink beer and eat fast food while watching Nascar and getting into fights! I want to make sure I get the full American experience!

Don't go changin', America, I'll be over, soon! 

[Rukh Whitefang]

Let me just make this clear as to what happened yesterday. Two muslims (who were radicalized) ambushed their co-workers and killed/wounded them in a pre-planned attack at a Christmas party.

 

This was no workplace violence/mass shooting as the media (and the President) is trying so hard to portray. This was a home grown terrorist attack.

Just because it would be hard to change a constitutional amendment does not in any way mean it is not something we should be doing.  I have stated before just because something is difficult to do that in no way changes our moral obligation to do that thing.  Also that is very arrogant of you to assume that your opposition does not know basic facts such as this about the constitution of the United States.

It won't work. What part of that didn't you get the first time. Do you have any idea how many guns are on the streets? Or how many guns pass through the borders? How about all the gangs and the cartels in the country? Are they just going to hand over their weapons (that they own illegally in the first place). Instead why not make common sense laws that will actually work and help rather than just go "eww guns are evil and people shouldn't own them".

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/san-bernardino-shooting-suspects-named-as-syed-rizwan-farook-and-wife-tashfeen-malik-after-14-killed-a6758246.html

"Farook was US born, while Malik's nationality was still unknown."

 

Was just reporting what was being said on live news at the time. Looks like it was his wife who was the foreign national (from Saudi Arabia).

[Zeke]

From what the news outlets have said, that it was a pre-planned attack due to a disgruntled (and unstable) employee going nanners. Witnesses who survived said that he came in okay and left pissed off since he had fought verbally with either his boss or someone else beforehand. When he returned, shit had hit the fan. Since it was planned, it seemed that he was planning to go postal in the beginning. 

 

Also, people who are domestic terrorists have always purchased their weapons legally. With the weapon tallies reported, only one was illegal since it was passed down from a friend of a friend. I think a few people mentioned "swapping guns" and the problems associated with that. However, since the suspects are immigrants, a lot of people will begin blaming illegals and/or middle eastern "muslim" immigrants because a couple of people (disgruntled person included) had gone nanners.

[Taikugemu]

From what the news outlets have said, that it was a pre-planned attack due to a disgruntled (and unstable) employee going nanners. Witnesses who survived said that he came in okay and left pissed off since he had fought verbally with either his boss or someone else beforehand. When he returned, shit had hit the fan. Since it was planned, it seemed that he was planning to go postal in the beginning. 

 

Also, people who are domestic terrorists have always purchased their weapons legally. With the weapon tallies reported, only one was illegal since it was passed down from a friend of a friend. I think a few people mentioned "swapping guns" and the problems associated with that. However, since the suspects are immigrants, a lot of people will begin blaming illegals and/or middle eastern "muslim" immigrants because a couple of people (disgruntled person included) had gone nanners.

Duuh, you can only generalize when it's either Muslims or illegals. If not, it's just an isolated case!

Edited December 4, 2015 by Taikugemu

[AshleyAshes]

This case is weird really.  The argument that they were simply radicalized terrorists has a big problem in it: What kind of fuckwitted terrorist shoots up their own company Christmas party?  I mean... REALLY, there's MUCH better targets that would have a significantly larger emotional impact on the American people as a whole than a company Christmas party.  Hell, any parking lot at 6am on Black Friday last weeknd would have been a better target. On the other hand, this seems it was planned, a lot of ammunition, pipe bombs, that's stuff that needs some time in the oven and isn't just slapped together in less than the time of a company Christmas party needs to run.

The shooters, a married couple, including a baby they simply dropped off with relatives the morning of, it's bizarre and pretty atypical.  It's also atypical that they made their escape and were stopped four hours later.  What was their plan?  If they wanted to hit more targets, four hours is too long, that's 'dicking around time' at that point.  Did they plan to somehow escape?  Four hours is the time you need to get a fleet of Police cars after you like it's five stars in Grand Theft Auto (Which is EXACTLY what happened) and that's pretty counter productive to any goal of 'kill more people'.  It'd have been smarter to get in, kill who you could, scoot out in the chaos, and hit another target while first responders are still trying to figure out if you're in the first location.

It'll be interesting to see the detailed motive of this.

[Derin Darkpaw]

It won't work. What part of that didn't you get the first time. Do you have any idea how many guns are on the streets? Or how many guns pass through the borders? How about all the gangs and the cartels in the country? Are they just going to hand over their weapons (that they own illegally in the first place). Instead why not make common sense laws that will actually work and help rather than just go "eww guns are evil and people shouldn't own them".

Wow man you tear that straw man apart.  You show him whose boss.

Seriously I never even recommended a total ban on guns nor did I ever refer to guns as evil.

[Lucyfish]

Nobody wants to ban guns. That was never even on the table. Retards hear the word "regulate" and they start freaking out thinking everything is going to get banned.

[PastryOfApathy]

Nobody wants to ban guns. That was never even on the table. Retards hear the word "regulate" and they start freaking out thinking everything is going to get banned.

I always guessed (and by guess, I mean I've listened to the people who propagate this nonsense) that it's the fabled slippery slope. First they make it so I can't carry a loaded machine gun into a preschool, then they're sending the army to take our guns at gunpoint or something.

Although to be fair the last part is mostly a power fantasy held by militia types who just want to sit around and play army while pretending to be retarded "freedom fighters" or something. Not that most of them have the balls to seriously shoot at anyone anyways.

Edited December 4, 2015 by PastryOfApathy

[MalletFace]

It won't work. What part of that didn't you get the first time. Do you have any idea how many guns are on the streets? Or how many guns pass through the borders? How about all the gangs and the cartels in the country? Are they just going to hand over their weapons (that they own illegally in the first place). Instead why not make common sense laws that will actually work and help rather than just go "eww guns are evil and people shouldn't own them".

Even though I am unsure that an outright ban would work (or that the person you are quoting even suggested it), what makes you so absolutely certain?

Vehemently defending something without sparing the smallest amount of impartiality is never a good idea.

Here are some points to think about when you defend so heavily Amendment II with guns in mind:

• Double-edged swords are banned in many states; where they are not, they are illegal to have unless for display. If I truly had a right to bear arms, why can I not own a double-edged sword when I can own a functional artillery piece?
• Single-edged swords cannot legally be carried for defense; swords of this type must be used for artistic or martial display. If I truly had a right to bear arms, why can I not defend myself with a single-edged sword when I can own a long gun for self-defense?
• Brass knuckles are illegal to carry in most states; they must be used for decoration. If I truly had a right to bear arms, why can I not defend myself with brass knuckles when I can own a handgun for self-defense?

These weapons were banned because they were considered "evil" during their prime, and they were common weapons of the foreigners (Our New Colossus hangs her head in shame at the perpetual American xenophobia). Along with these, many Arabic, Deccan, north-Indian, Polynesian, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Siberian, west-African, and Slavic bladed and blunt weapons; many common North and South American weapons like blowguns, poison arrows, knives of bone, and certain types of spear; and many weapons of the poor like certain knives, clubs, and clothing-based weapons were banned.

If we are to uphold a right to bear arms, would it not be reasonable that these weapons have their bans removed? If these bans should not be removed, what of the more dangerous weapons that it is even sometimes legal for a person under 18 to possess, such as a long gun?

In addition, while the federal government cannot, after having served your sentence sentence or even during it in most cases, take away your

• freedom of religion,
• freedom of speech,
• freedom to assemble,
• freedom to petition,
• freedom to participate in the press,
• freedom from quartering of soldiers,
• freedom from unreasonable search and seizure,
• freedom from self-incrimination,
• freedom from double jeopardy,
• freedom from excessive bail,
• freedom from cruel and unusual punishments,
• right to due process,
• right to a speedy and public trial,
• right to be informed of criminal accusations,
• right to obtain witnesses,
• right to acquire a defense,
• right to a trial in the district the crime was committed,
• right to be confronted by those accusing, and
• any other fundamental right or freedom that I have not listed,

they can, and do, take away an individual's right to bear arms.

Does this mean that this "right" is not actually a right? If it is, does it not conflict with the ideal presented here to remove that right? Can a right be taken away? If a right can be taken away, should it be taken away? What does this say of the other "rights?"

If there is an underlying right here, does the wording of the amendment not obfuscate the meaning? If there is a right, would this right not trace back to English common law and theorists like Locke like most of the others? Would this common law right not be the right to self-defense? If it is, why does the amendment seem to permit all arms when it was explicitly written and popularly accepted in common law, theory, and practice that which arms can be possessed and who may possess them can legally be limited by the government? Do the first four words of the amendment clarify this ambiguity? If they do not, what does the amendment actually mean and why are the first four words there?

I would really like to see us (collectively as a nation) scrap that archaic amendment, turn towards rational debate and informed forum, ask ourselves any questions we can think of about where we stand and what we need concerning arms, and apply this to reforming the law in a way that best suits a combination of what we need and what we want. This will, however, never happen because the ones that care about this issue are normally frightened by the idea that keeping their "right" may not be reasonable or are normally frightened by the idea that lack of action or delayed action will cause the problem to be irreversible. To be more specific, rationality gets thrown out of the door because fear, zealotry, and willful ignorance take over.

As a note beside that rant, I find it interesting that Republican candidates for nomination as candidates for the presidency have been using religion as consolation for the recent shooting, offering prayers and good vibes, while most Democratic candidates for nomination as candidates for the presidency have been using calls to action as consolation for the recent shooting, offering reform and regulation; one side turns to tradition as a response to change and crisis, and one side turns to change as a response to change and crisis.

Yes, the democrats are politicizing the issue, but should we really ignore it and hope for the best?

Edited December 4, 2015 by MalletFace

[#00Buck]

Nobody wants to ban guns. That was never even on the table. Retards hear the word "regulate" and they start freaking out thinking everything is going to get banned.

Registration leads to confiscation. 

Look at England, Australia, Canada and every other place where registration has taken place. 

It is is the fist step to a total ban. 

[AshleyAshes]

Registration leads to confiscation. 

Look at England, Australia, Canada and every other place where registration has taken place. 

It is is the fist step to a total ban. 

But we totally have guns in Canada.  It's not even that hard to get a gun in Canada if you go through the licensing process.

[#00Buck]

But we totally have guns in Canada.  It's not even that hard to get a gun in Canada if you go through the licensing process.

Wrrrrroooooonnngggggg!!!!!!!

There are several classifications of guns in Canada. 

12.2 - 12.7

All section 12 guns are prohibited. The vast majority of which were registered and then confiscated forcibly by police officers entering the houses of people who owned them. I know many people who had the police pounding on their doors demanding that they hand over their AK-47 or SPAS 12 under threat of arrest. 

The same will happen in the USA if they allow registration to take place. 

Registration does lead to confiscation. Go and try to buy an AK-47 in Canada. Can't do it. Banned. Confiscated. 

[AshleyAshes]

Wrrrrroooooonnngggggg!!!!!!!

There are several classifications of guns in Canada. 

12.2 - 12.7

All section 12 guns are prohibited. The vast majority of which were registered and then confiscated forcibly by police officers entering the houses of people who owned them. I know many people who had the police pounding on their doors demanding that they hand over their AK-47 or SPAS 12 under threat of arrest. 

The same will happen in the USA if they allow registration to take place. 

Registration does lead to confiscation. Go and try to buy an AK-47 in Canada. Can't do it. Banned. Confiscated. 

I guess that poor Canadians will have to stick with M14 derivatives?

[MalletFace]

Go and try to buy an AK-47 in Canada. Can't do it. Banned. Confiscated. 

Go and try to buy a Kinder Surprise in the U.S.A. Can't do it. Banned. Confiscated.

 

I, too, can point at something that has been banned and draw conclusions based on what that means. What really matters is why the thing is banned.

That they are both banned because of risk of injury or death is something you could ponder about for a while.

[#00Buck]

Go and try to buy a Kinder Surprise in the U.S.A. Can't do it. Banned. Confiscated.

 

I, too, can point at something that has been banned and draw conclusions based on what that means. What really matters is why the thing is banned.

That they are both banned because of risk of injury or death is something you could ponder about for a while.

You can get crack cocaine anywhere in the USA they should ban... Oh wait...

[MalletFace]

You can get crack cocaine anywhere in the USA they should ban... Oh wait...

 

Ladies and gentlemen, Buck's Strategy for Revising Inefficient and Failing Laws:

1. Recognize that the law is not working well
2. Give up
3. Repeal the law and ignore the problem

Edit: I am surprisingly ashamed of this post. I shouldn't post when I am tired.

Edited December 4, 2015 by MalletFace

[Lucyfish]

Registration leads to confiscation. 

Look at England, Australia, Canada and every other place where registration has taken place. 

It is is the fist step to a total ban. 

Booze is regulated, we still have that lol.

The government knows prohibition doesn't work, REGULATION does however.

I mean come on, we have a national registry for automobiles but not fucking GUNS? Priorities, nigga.

Edited December 4, 2015 by Lucyfish

[Zaraphayx]

Maybe you nerds should come back and try again when you're armed with something other than strawman arguments and essays about how you can't use a sword for self-defense like some kind of weeaboo clown.
 

[FlynnCoyote]

So, the Senate's ingenious response to the shooting attack of Planned Parenthood: Senate votes to Defund PP

Thank Satan you guys have a decent man on top of your government, because the majority of them are fucking morons.

[#00Buck]

Booze is regulated, we still have that lol.

The government knows prohibition doesn't work, REGULATION does however.

I mean come on, we have a national registry for automobiles but not fucking GUNS? Priorities, nigga.

Registering a car is pointless. It's just a tax. Nothing should be registered. 

Quit asking the government for more restrictions on everything. 

Some people love their fascism. 

[Troj]

So, the Senate's ingenious response to the shooting attack of Planned Parenthood: Senate votes to Defund PP

Thank Satan you guys have a decent man on top of your government, because the majority of them are fucking morons.

Oh, they've been waiting a while to do something like this, I reckon.

But, Obama will most likely veto it, so this is just a stupid, futile symbolic gesture on their part.

Never mind that abortion represents a comparatively small slice of what PP actually does, because this has never truly just been about having an objection to abortion.

Anywho, I've never known a gun debate to produce anything but more angst and hurt feelings. People generally come away even more convinced of their own position, and nothing changes. Much like abortion, guns are a symbol of many things, so no gun debate is ever really just about the guns as metal objects that shoot bullets.
 

[Rassah]

Rassah almost makes a good point here except he misses the point.  Australia did not simply implement gun restrictions and see a fall in gun violence.  Australia as a society saw less and less need for gun violence, this enabled popular support for fire arms restrictions laws to pass while the society continued to engage in less gun violence.  Australia didn't ban guns; Australia stopped shooting people in the face.  The United States of America however, is very pro-shooting people in the face.  The United States has a problem with mothers carrying loaded, unsafetied handguns in their purses and being killed by their toddlers.  ( http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/12/30/woman-shot-with-own-gun/21062089/ )  The United States has a problem with firearms carried for 'protection' being used to fire upon cars that cut the driver off. ( http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2015/10/22/man-charged-with-murder-in-albuquerque-road-rage-killing-of-4-year-old.html )  The United States has a problem with children dying because keeping a loaded firearm on the coffee table next to the Wiimote sounds like a good idea. ( http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/toddler-dies-mistaking-gun-wii-controller/story?id=10056190 )  The United States has a problem with weird, murder obsessed teenagers who are home schooled to 'protect them from the public school system' having access to a wide range of hunting rifles.  ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting )  In short, The United States has a systemic gun culture problem that it is unwilling to address.  Who's going to support a ban on firearms in a nation that feels that it needs to have a gun incase that bitch refuses to go stop trying to divorce her husband...?  Er, I mean, a nation that feels it needs to take protection into it's own hands.

I wouldn't call one or two, or even a dozen, sick incidents out of a population of a few hundred million a "problem." Stupid people do stupid things, sometimes even getting themselves out of the gene pool. It doesn't reflect on the rest of us.

 

 

Secondly, and most importantly, all branches of The United States Military's ranks are filled primarily of lower and middle class citizens, all of whom have volunteered for the job.  When faced with the orders to 'Round up everyone in New Jersey, arrest them, kill anyone who resists, because fuck New Jersey!' those soldiers will promptly decide 'Actually, fuck you'.  You then have the larger problem of these soldiers, the ones who actually know how to drive the tanks and use them with the best training available in the world, have turned on the government in the face of egregious and blatantly illegal orders.  Shockingly, soldiers are not actually 'KillBots' who can then be ordered to kill anyone on command.  Rather, they are human beings, some of whom come from New Jersey, have friends and family there, or just had a nice time at Atlantic City once and feel that 'Operation Fuck Jersey' is a crock of shit.

As you said, they're lower and middle class. Usually ones without many other options. Usually because they can't think of other options, or because they fell for the recruitment propaganda. I'm saying they're mostly not the brightest bunch. And to top it off, boot camp and the rest of their training is usually all about brainwashing them even further. How else do you explain the awful way they behave themselves in other countries we invade? So it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to convince them that they are actually protecting the people of NJ from "terrorists," and be extremely suspicious of anyone who protests. Like how they shoot unarmed people driving cars overseas because they're afraid those cars are full of terrorists and bombs.

The easiest way to impose tyrany on your own people is to convince them that you are trying to protect them from some outside threat. Happened in Germany, in USSR, and V for Vendetta had a nice overview of how that whole thing works.

[Rassah]

Regarding the most recent example of a mass shooting in California, maybe we they should ban assault rifles?

Oh wait, they already did.

Maybe they should ban high capacity magazines?

Nope, did that too.

Oh, maybe they should have a 10 day waiting period to buy a gun?

Damn, they have that already.

Set up gun free zones?

No, those never seem to work.

I guess California showed that all those stupid gun restrictions and regulations don't work, because *gasp* criminals don't follow laws. 

 

Ladies and gentlemen, Buck's Strategy for Revising Inefficient and Failing Laws:

1. Recognize that the law is not working well
2. Give up
3. Repeal the law and ignore the problem

Edit: I am surprisingly ashamed of this post. I shouldn't post when I am tired.

Actually it's more like

1. Recognize that the law is causing way more harm than the crime it is attempting to solve.

2. Get rid of the extremely harmful law and figure out some other way to fix the problem.

 

[evan]

I wouldn't call one or two, or even a dozen, sick incidents out of a population of a few hundred million a "problem." Stupid people do stupid things, sometimes even getting themselves out of the gene pool. It doesn't reflect on the rest of us.

So when I look up statistics for accidental gun related deaths and that number is still significantly higher than other countries with effective gun regulations in place, youd still wanna just make the argument that its just stupid people?

 

on top of that why is that a realistic reason for 505 people to die in a year (based on 2013 stats)? if there are people who, in your eyes, are not of an intelligence to handle a gun safely, why can they get them so easily?

 

[FlynnCoyote]

 

1. Recognize that the law is causing way more harm than the crime it is attempting to solve.

2. Get rid of the extremely harmful law and figure out some other way to fix the problem.

 

Wait, which law is causing more harm than good?

And what is this "some other way" you speak of? Because from here it looks like jack all is happening.

[Kaizy]

[Sourdough]

Damn rednecks, always making banjos look bad.

[Lucyfish]

Registering a car is pointless. It's just a tax. Nothing should be registered. 

Quit asking the government for more restrictions on everything. 

Some people love their fascism. 

As much as I love anarchy, it doesn't work on a large scale lol

[#00Buck]

As much as I love anarchy, it doesn't work on a large scale lol

It work on every scale. 

[Lucyfish]

It work on every scale. 

No sweetpea, it really doesn't. Look at Detroit.

[#00Buck]

No sweetpea, it really doesn't. Look at Detroit.

What's wrong with it?

[Lucyfish]

What's wrong with it?

One of the highest rates of violence in the entire country. Why? Cuz' the policy over there is "We can't handle it so we keep our hands off."

[#00Buck]

One of the highest rates of violence in the entire country. Why? Cuz' the policy over there is "We can't handle it so we keep our hands off."

Why is that a problem?

[Lucyfish]

Why is that a problem?

Because murder isn't very cool lol

[#00Buck]

Because murder isn't very cool lol

Have you tried it?