Rant: politicizing gun violence

[Rassah]

I don't condone killing people so... yes? Education over extermination, brah.

I don't either. On the contrary, my position is that we SHOULDN'T kill people, while Ashley's position is that we should. If people refuse to follow the law that she would like to have, she fully supports escalating the enforcement of that law until the person refusing to follow it is dead.

I simply propose we don't interfere by force to protect people. Education In fine with, and fully support, but if they don't want to learn, it's on their heads, not ours.

[AshleyAshes]

my position is that we SHOULDN'T kill people, while Ashley's position is that we should.

They will not die, they will simply being completing their purpose as one of many who are involved in the construction of The Grand Galloping Snow Leopard Sphinx.  The completion of their lives will be an honor onto them as it will onto me.

[Lucyfish]

Putting regulations on things isn't interfering by force, though. Cars are regulated quite heavily, yet nobody is throwing any bitchfits about that. Think of something like a magazine size limit as the same thing as a speed limit. You still have what you need, it still serves the purpose it needs to, but it puts the public around you at less of a risk.

Regulations are fairly necessary, because the majority of the human race are morons.

[AshleyAshes]

I have this mental image of Rassah being all 'High School Debate Club', all the while I wear a Burger King paper crown and holding a serving spoon as a scepter.  He's convinced that if he an just make the right argument and choosing of words he's going to win this, meanwhile I'm trying to make pudding.

[FlynnCoyote]

I don't either. On the contrary, my position is that we SHOULDN'T kill people, while Ashley's position is that we should. If people refuse to follow the law that she would like to have, she fully supports escalating the enforcement of that law until the person refusing to follow it is dead.

I simply propose we don't interfere by force to protect people. Education In fine with, and fully support, but if they don't want to learn, it's on their heads, not ours.

Let's take away work health and safety regulations. Let's take away poisons hotlines. Let's just take the warning labels off everything. Let's not worry about regulating the use of chemical agents for pesticides and stop making people pass driving tests before we let them drive a car. Only morons are gonna get killed by all this stuff anyway, right?

[AshleyAshes]

Are there any artists in this thread?  I think I'll like totes pay PayPal monies for someone to draw that right now. D:

[Rukh Whitefang]

Putting regulations on things isn't interfering by force, though. Cars are regulated quite heavily, yet nobody is throwing any bitchfits about that. Think of something like a magazine size limit as the same thing as a speed limit. You still have what you need, it still serves the purpose it needs to, but it puts the public around you at less of a risk.

Regulations are fairly necessary, because the majority of the human race are morons.

Thing is, the California shooting was with small magazines in the rifles and handguns. A 10 round magazine is all that is allowed in the State of California. Its stated the terrorists (took the media nearly 2 days to admit that) fired 75 rounds. That means they were carrying at least 8 magazines of ammo. Limiting magazine size doesn't make a difference, you can cycle a clip in a split second as was clearly shown.

 

[Zeke]

I really do not see Lucy advocating death.

However, when it comes to us and our social structures as an American society, there needs to be some moderation and balance. Some things needs to be regulated and others need to be restricted until proven that they can handle it with proper education. Banning things here in the US doesn't really serve a purpose, especially with something SO INGRAINED in our little culture (of violence) that has more homwgrown terrorists killing others because they fail to properly control themselves.

And blaming an object is basically absolving the responsibility of that person's actions into something else. The shooter is fucked in the head, and if he did not use a gun, he could have made mustard gas bombs, or napalm.

 

Let's take away work health and safety regulations. Let's take away poisons hotlines. Let's just take the warning labels off everything. Let's not worry about regulating the use of chemical agents for pesticides and stop making people pass driving tests before we let them drive a car. Only morons are gonna get killed by all this stuff anyway, right?

You'd have Darwinism working...and lawsuits.

[Rassah]

Everyone, something just occurred to me... Rassah just said that I am the authoritian God-King of the forum and I attempted to rebut how silly that was.  My stance has changed on this:

Yes, I am the God-King of The Phoenix Forums who controls all and I expect the rest of you to fall in line as Rassah has! :V

And, as you apparently forgot, I'm an anarchist, so kindly go fuck yourself  (incidentally, it's also why I'm much more aware of your sociopath type, compared to others who may have simply grown used to it)

That the child is not punished for the sins of the parent is one of the guiding principles of modern western culture. We may not always uphold that commitment in effect, but we still try.

Accidents are not punishment. They are lessons in of themselves. Sometimes people refuse to learn, and sometimes the lessons are too harsh. I'm all for education, but not the forced brainwashing kind.

Back in my day, dead children was something to be avoided.

It's something to be avoided now too (unless you believe in the overpopulation catastrophe scenario, which I don't...). But don't educate children at the expense of dead adults. Because if you force education and force prohibition, you'll have way more dead adults  than saved children (see: alcohol prohibition, homosexuality prohibition, drug war...)

Putting regulations on things isn't interfering by force, though. Cars are regulated quite heavily, yet nobody is throwing any bitchfits about that. 

 That's because EVERYONE knows that force, up to and including lethal force, is implied. Cars are regulated, and if you refuse to follow those regulations, first you are extorted for money, then you are threatened for more money, then they come and try to take you away and confine you, and if you still resist, they kill you.

Ask yourself, at which point would the regulators and police simply leave you alone if you refuse to comply?

 

[Wolflich]

If I was going to draw anything to symbolise this thread I think I'd start with Newton's cradle...

[Rukh Whitefang]

I really do not see Lucy advocating death.

However, when it comes to us and our social structures as an American society, there needs to be some moderation and balance. Some things needs to be regulated and others need to be restricted until proven that they can handle it with proper education. Banning things here in the US doesn't really serve a purpose, especially with something SO INGRAINED in our little culture (of violence) that has more homwgrown terrorists killing others because they fail to properly control themselves.

And blaming an object is basically absolving the responsibility of that person's actions into something else. The shooter is fucked in the head, and if he did not use a gun, he could have made mustard gas bombs, or napalm.

A very good point. I am old enough to remember the Oklahoma City bombing. One hundred and eighty two people died from a fertilizer bomb.

[Zeke]

Please keep things civil in this thread.

[Lucyfish]

That's because EVERYONE knows that force, up to and including lethal force, is implied. Cars are regulated, and if you refuse to follow those regulations, first you are extorted for money, then you are threatened for more money, then they come and try to take you away and confine you, and if you still resist, they kill you.

Ask yourself, at which point would the regulators and police simply leave you alone if you refuse to comply?

So you're saying we should just not enforce laws? As much as I love anarchy, it doesn't work on such a large scale man.

[AshleyAshes]

A 10 round magazine is all that is allowed in the State of California. Its stated the terrorists (took the media nearly 2 days to admit that) fired 75 rounds.

Would you seriously stop with this passive aggressive media conspiracy stuff?  Seriously, the media didn't report any of the details, such as how many SHOTS WERE FIRED, until that information was processed and then released to the media by the FBI and other investigating authorities.  The media is NOT allowed to go all CSI on crime scenes themselves.  They aren't even allowed to see them until the police are entirely done with them.  The media basically has no investigative resources beyond asking the police on the down low for unreleased details and Googling the Facebook profiles of individuals involved in crimes.  So the media did not 'wait two days' to admit anything, the media sat on it's hands waiting for the FBI to release information because putting on their own 'CSI' Jackets and storming the scene to count the bullet holes themselves IS A CRIME.

[Zeke]

A very good point. I am old enough to remember the Oklahoma City bombing. One hundred and eighty two people died from a fertilizer bomb.

Sadly, I am not...so I have wikipedia.

 

There's also the "Anarchist's cookbook" circulating around which also teaches people to make home made bombs and weapons. If you look deep enough in the web, I am sure someone has posted a PDF of it. If someone wanted to make a bomb instead of buying a gun, they could. Some, if not most, of the things you need are at Lowe's.

EDIT: Nevermind, I only had to wade in the kiddy google pool

http://bnrg.cs.berkeley.edu/~randy/Courses/CS39K.S13/anarchistcookbook2000.pdf

Edited December 6, 2015 by Zeke

[Lucyfish]

Please keep things civil in this thread.

No

I will poop in your socks

Edited December 6, 2015 by Lucyfish

[PastryOfApathy]

The answer is self evident, unless you're an idiot.

But you're like, one of those babies the Spartans would punt off a mountain.

[Zeke]

No

I will poop in your socks

And I will shit in your mouth. I ate a lot of cheese today.

[AshleyAshes]

A very good point. I am old enough to remember the Oklahoma City bombing. One hundred and eighty two people died from a fertilizer bomb.

And now there's an entire Federal program and legal structure dedicated to regulating the transportation and sale of Ammonium Nitrate...

[Lucyfish]

And I will shit in your mouth. I ate a lot of cheese today.

Jeez man ESCALATING MUCH??????

[Kaizy]

[AshleyAshes]

And, as you apparently forgot, I'm an anarchist, so kindly go fuck yourself  (incidentally, it's also why I'm much more aware of your sociopath type, compared to others who may have simply grown used to it)

Ressah, I just cherry pick the posts rather than respond toe very single detail because I have zero interest in getting into some prolonged, multifaceted debate.  This is not the high school debate club, it's an internet forum, you are not guaranteed your time for rebuttal.

[Rassah]

So you're saying we should just not enforce laws? As much as I love anarchy, it doesn't work on such a large scale man.

No, more complicated than that. Basically we shouldn't have nonsensical unethical laws, or what is effectively a legalized organized crime to enforce them. We can have far better legal systems, with far better (I.e. actually working) incentives and disincentives for good and bad behavior, which does not always rely on a thug with a gun to make it happen. Anarchy doesn't mean without laws, it just means without rulers, where people voluntarily govern themselves, and those who misbehave are collectively excluded from society.

Anyway, enough of this bullshit. I need to go finish packing for Aruba, since my flight leaves at 7am. Peace out, bitches!

Edited December 6, 2015 by Rassah

[Lucyfish]

No, more complicated than that. Basically we shouldn't have nonsensical unethical laws, or what us effectively a legalized organized crime to enforce them. We can have far better legal systems, with far better (I.em actually working) incentives and disincentives for good and bad behavior, which does not always rely on a thug with a gun to make it happen. Anarchy doesn't mean without laws, it just means without  rulers, where people voluntarily govern themselves, and those who misbehave ate collectively excluded from society.

Anyway, enough of this bullshit. I need to go finish packing for Aruba, since my flight leaves at 7am. Peace out, bitches!

But Ressah, that's dirty SOCIALISM you speak of!

[Rukh Whitefang]

Would you seriously stop with this passive aggressive media conspiracy stuff?  Seriously, the media didn't report any of the details, such as how many SHOTS WERE FIRED, until that information was processed and then released to the media by the FBI and other investigating authorities.  The media is NOT allowed to go all CSI on crime scenes themselves.  They aren't even allowed to see them until the police are entirely done with them.  The media basically has no investigative resources beyond asking the police on the down low for unreleased details and Googling the Facebook profiles of individuals involved in crimes.  So the media did not 'wait two days' to admit anything, the media sat on it's hands waiting for the FBI to release information because putting on their own 'CSI' Jackets and storming the scene to count the bullet holes themselves IS A CRIME.

 

It started out as 3 white males dressed in black as suspects according to CNN (I watched the live coverage at work), then it moved onto potentially a white supremacist attack. It wasn't until nearly 24 hours later when one of the shooters was I'D that the whole story changed. Up until that point it was a a group of white males who went on a killing spree. Of course I am going to point out the shoddy media coverage and potential misdirection. Why make crap up? Because it sells a specific message that guns are evil and they need to be more restricted. And we have the President and the Pres Secutary (footage I linked in here) saying that more gun control would have prevented a pre planned terrorist attack even though California has some of the toughest gun laws in the country.

Would you kindly respond to any of the questions I have levied in this thread as to how more gun laws, more restrictions would have stopped this? I posted California's gun laws, go and reread them and come back with a suggestion as what to do.

[PastryOfApathy]

Anyway, enough of this bullshit. I need to go finish packing for Aruba, since my flight leaves at 7am. Peace out, bitches!

That's honestly one of the funniest fucking things you've ever said and you're too dumb to ever realize why.

[AshleyAshes]

It started out as 3 white males dressed in black as suspects according to CNN (I watched the live coverage at work), then it moved onto potentially a white supremacist attack. It wasn't until nearly 24 hours later when one of the shooters was I'D that the whole story changed. Up until that point it was a a group of white males who went on a killing spree. Of course I am going to point out the shoddy media coverage and potential misdirection. Why make crap up?

I don't understand why this surprises you.  In these situations News media is in a battle for ratings and will grab any scrap of information they can source, it's generally unreliable.  Bombings and shootings are exceptionally chaotic situations, meanwhile everyone is starting at the TV or clicking refresh in an effort to gain any additional grains of information.  The first hand reporting in confusing situations is highly unreliable since people are more worried about getting out in one piece than they are with trying to accurately record every detail of the event.  We live in a society where the ability to distribute information is almost instant but the ability to GET new information is much, much, much slower than that.

Simply put, the media reports on SHITTY information that is constantly influx and things are usually not sorted out until investigators are literally crawling though chunks of drywall and human blood, formatting a detailed version of events from all information available and then releasing that information to the media.

There is no conspiracy here Rukh, it's just ratings driven news media that knows that which ever company gets the next new hit of information, accurate or not, gets all the viewers.  You think that the media is trying to manipulate reality for nefarious culture manipulating purposes, but the truth is much, much worse; The media is just trying to get more commercial views and banner ad hits.

As for your earlier suggestions that the media is purposefully trying not to call it 'Terrorism' as some form of manipulation.  The truth is, some guy DID shoot up his company Christmas party and that was about all the information there was until suspects were identified.  Your country has a PROBLEM with people carrying out shootings like that.  But more importantly: Terrorism sells.  Terrorism gets viewers, it sells commerials, and it racks up banner ads.  There is no media conspiracy to 'hide terrorism', because the media would call blizzards 'Ice Terrorism' if the FCC would allow it.

 

Keep in mind that you live in a country where The New York Post made a front page headline declaring that these two individuals were sought by police as the bag men in the Boston Marathon bombing.  ...Except that they were not suspects, the Police had no interest in these individuals, but in the drive to have the scoop and sell newspapers so the fucked it up rather than even actually checking with the cops.
 

Edited December 6, 2015 by AshleyAshes

[Rassah]

But Ressah, that's dirty SOCIALISM you speak of!

Nah, socialism always, always, ALWAYS requires a thug with a gun. No exceptions.

"Isn't it funny how socialism is such a popular idea, that it never works voluntarily, and requires an army of armed thugs to enforce on everyone?"

Incidentally, I find it quite ironic that the same people who clamor for total ban on guns, or severe restrictions thereof, at the same time support an economic idea that can not exist without an army of thugs armed with guns to enforce it?

 

That said, thanks for being coordial Lucy. I hope you don't take the back-and-forth banter personally. And I hope your home life situation improved since we last talked.

[Lucyfish]

Nah, socialism always, always, ALWAYS requires a thug with a gun. No exceptions.

"Isn't it funny how socialism is such a popular idea, that it never works voluntarily, and requires an army of armed thugs to enforce on everyone?"

Incidentally, I find it quite ironic that the same people who clamor for total ban on guns, or severe restrictions thereof, at the same time support an economic idea that can not exist without an army of thugs armed with guns to enforce it?

 

That said, thanks for being coordial Lucy. I hope you don't take the back-and-forth banter personally. And I hope your home life situation improved since we last talked.

That's not socialism, that's Stalinist Communism. Different method. o3o

And no, I don't take differing opinions personally. Unless you like Kingdom Hearts and Drake, then you can die lolol

[Toboe]

It started out as 3 white males dressed in black as suspects according to CNN (I watched the live coverage at work), then it moved onto potentially a white supremacist attack. It wasn't until nearly 24 hours later when one of the shooters was I'D that the whole story changed. Up until that point it was a a group of white males who went on a killing spree. Of course I am going to point out the shoddy media coverage and potential misdirection. Why make crap up? Because it sells a specific message that guns are evil and they need to be more restricted. And we have the President and the Pres Secutary (footage I linked in here) saying that more gun control would have prevented a pre planned terrorist attack even though California has some of the toughest gun laws in the country.

Would you kindly respond to any of the questions I have levied in this thread as to how more gun laws, more restrictions would have stopped this? I posted California's gun laws, go and reread them and come back with a suggestion as what to do.

And a "white supremacist attack" wouldn't have been terrorism?

Actually, "ISIS GUNMEN SLAUGHTERING[...], WHY DID THE NRA SELL THEM[...]?" would have been a nice headline to make guns seem evil, right? Questionable on facts, but great at painting gun-owners as evil, i'd assume.

[Lucyfish]

Remember kids, only brown people can be terrorists

[I Did It For The Cat Girls]

 

Please keep things civil in this thread.

Prepare to be disappointed. 

[Kaizy]

[Zaraphayx]

Furry forums are full of socialists who want to ban guns because they're too poor to field the tax burden and also too poor to afford a gun, illegally or not.

[PastryOfApathy]

But if we ban guns, how will I be able to defend myself against the black menace?

[Zeke]

A lot of media sensationalism always portrays either the item guilty, or push further judgement on one group or another by putting special emphasis on it.

If reporters didn't do this, they'd be out of a job.

[Spot]

Remember kids, only brown people can be terrorists

 

[AlexInsane]

 All these pictures of patriotic Americans with their big metal dicks are giving me a boner.

 

Time to get out out the pruning shears. 

[MalletFace]

My favorite things in this thread are Kaizy's posts.

I wonder if wearing nothing but underwear, shoes, socks, and a hat is mandatory after owning a certain number of guns.

[Khaki]

 

Gibby -Yeah, it's a slamfire shotgun, very cheap and easily concealable due to the nature of the device, if you want I could send you a list of pdf files, including the two sten ones.

Had actually considered such a concept in the shape of a grease gun for easy concealment in a motor vehicle.

 

 Conker - Jim Jeffries is a poor example to rationally justify gun control in Australia or the US.

However I find it strange that he was completely accepting of being subjugated and being made a bitch by two machete wielding burglars once.

 

Zeke - The American government has published and openly provided a great deal of manuals on such subjects, such as the TM-31-210-1.

For some reason I keep making quotes of quotes.

Edited December 6, 2015 by Khaki
Difficulties working new forum format.

[Zaraphayx]

My favorite things in this thread are Kaizy's posts.

I wonder if wearing nothing but underwear, shoes, socks, and a hat is mandatory after owning a certain number of guns.

I own 5 guns and am not wearing anything atm does that answer your question

[PastryOfApathy]

My favorite things in this thread are Kaizy's posts.

I wonder if wearing nothing but underwear, shoes, socks, and a hat is mandatory after owning a certain number of guns.

After owning a certain amount of guns, most of your clothes run away in fear.

[Khaki]

At least gun debates aren't as bad as male circumcision debates.

Until someone sticks their genitalia into an M1 Garand receiver slot.

[Kaizy]

[willow]

I am sick and tired of watching politicians using evil crimes to push their agendas. Sick and tired of it. Stop politicizing crimes to sell your supposed "plan". I have come to the conclusion that The President either is pushing a different agenda and using gun violence as his excuse (more likely) or (less likely) he is just a complete moron. Its cited by the FBI that 98.6% (2013 statistics) of all gun crimes are committed by an illegally purchased firearm. Instead of cracking down on the illegal weapons black market, they want to make it next it impossible to by a gun legally (or ban them completely). And quite frankly at this point I have to begin to wonder why. When the facts are so glaringly obvious that doing to doesn't stop violent gun crimes in the U.S (Chicago is a great example) I have to believe there is an ulterior motive.

Seeing as how the right to owning a gun is in our Constitution and that every state has its own laws on gun ownership, it's always been a political topic. And when people are being killed in mass shootings or just randomly all over the country, it's a national problem.

What I don't get is why Conservatives are so opposed to having stricter gun laws when the US is one of the only Western countries that seems to constantly have this issue. Like obviously something needs to change.

Also I'd like to know where that statistic came from because that seems like a pretty high number. Especially when a lot of the recent gun crimes in 2014/2015 were committed by the police *sips tea* :3c

[Toboe]

Seeing as how the right to owning a gun is in our Constitution and that every state has its own laws on gun ownership, it's always been a political topic. And when people are being killed in mass shootings or just randomly all over the country, it's a national problem.

What I don't get is why Conservatives are so opposed to having stricter gun laws when the US is one of the only Western countries that seems to constantly have this issue. Like obviously something needs to change.

Also I'd like to know where that statistic came from because that seems like a pretty high number. Especially when a lot of the recent gun crimes in 2014/2015 were committed by the police *sips tea* :3c

Ideology -> fixated on "guns are freedom!", fear of being defenceless. (guns as something reinforcing their "manliness"?)

Coupled with someone hyping the trope of "gun-grab" and anything restricting guns being a slippery slope (if we let x then y).

 

Besides fixing the other problems leading to those shootings, ofcourse.

[Rassah]

(Stuck at the Miami airport...) 

Seeing as how the right to owning a gun is in our Constitution and that every state has its own laws on gun ownership, it's always been a political topic. And when people are being killed in mass shootings or just randomly all over the country, it's a national problem.

Depends on how you draw the borders. Exclude the 5 most violent cities, and US is safer than most of Europe. Take Europe as a whole giant country, including the Balctics, and its more violent than US. It's a geographically localized problem. One that has been steadily improving over the years, even without stricter gun control.

 

What I don't get is why Conservatives are so opposed to having stricter gun laws when the US is one of the only Western countries that seems to constantly have this issue. Like obviously something needs to change.

Only if you cherry pick which countries you consider "Western." There are a few countries that are industrialized first world nations that have it worse (like Brazil for instance). It also distorts the issue by focusing on only gun homicides while ignoring other homicides, as if gun homicides are somehow worse that others, despite the exact same outcome. If you include homicides in general, US again doesn't come off much worse than others.

And, unfortunately, the only proposed changes are for trying to fix the symptoms instead of underlying problems, and involve centralizing gun ownership instead of restricting it. 

 

[Clove Darkwave]

Actually, "ISIS GUNMEN

TRIGGERED!

How dare they and by extension you sully the great goddess' name! I demand you cease and desist.

In all seriousness, it makes me sad when people use that.

Have a little education:

ISIS OR ISIL?

The group traces its roots back to Al-Qaida in Iraq, which declared an Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) in 2006. The name never really caught on, however, because the militants were never able to seize and hold significant territory. That began to change when the group expanded into neighboring Syria, exploiting the chaos of its civil war. In 2013 the leader of the Islamic State of Iraq, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, renamed it the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, signaling its emergence as a transnational force while sowing the first seeds of confusion over what to call it. Al-Sham is an archaic word for a vaguely defined territory that includes what is now Syria, Lebanon, Israel, the Palestinian territories and Jordan. It is most often translated as either Syria — in the sense of a greater Syria that no longer exists — or as the Levant, the closest English term for the territory it describes. In English, the group's name was translated variously as the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (also ISIS), or the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), the term usually used by the U.S. government and various U.N. agencies.

DAESH

Mainly in the Middle East but increasingly beyond, those opposed to the group turned the Arabic acronym corresponding to ISIS into a single word — "Daesh." The word is nonsensical and doesn't mean anything in Arabic but has a mocking tone and is insulting to IS because it diminishes its claim to have revived the Islamic caliphate. It is also close to the words "dahesh" and "da'es," meaning "one who tramples," making it fodder for puns. The IS group's opponents, including public officials like French President Francois Hollande and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, have used to condemn or diminish the group. Dawaesh, a plural form of the word that sounds even sillier in Arabic, is widely used in the Middle East. IS itself bans the use of the term Daesh in areas it controls. But Arabic speakers have found other ways to put down the group. After the IS group's bitter falling out with al-Qaida in 2013, al-Qaida supporters began referring to it as "al-Baghdadi's group," emphasizing their view of him as a renegade. Syrians living under IS rule often refer to it as "al-tanzeem," Arabic for "the organization."

 

Yes I know I am derailing but this thread sucks anyway. So please, start referring to it as IS/ISIL. Or better yet Dawaesh to show a little support for the people that have to live under this kind of bullshit.

[Conker]

If I was going to draw anything to symbolise this thread I think I'd start with Newton's cradle...

Really? Cuz i'd draw a dumpster.

[Toboe]

 

[rest that i can't spoiler because the quoting would make it vanish]

 Not giving the daesh-bags the name they want? Sure, why not.

 

 

Edited December 7, 2015 by Kalmor
Removed insults.